社会影响理论

此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，翻译字数共2587，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。

模板:More footnotes Social impact theory was created by Bibb Latané in 1981 and consists of four basic rules which consider how individuals can be "sources or targets of social influence".^[1] Social impact is the result of social forces including the strength of the source of impact, the immediacy of the event, and the number of sources exerting the impact.^[2] The more targets of impact that exist, the less impact each individual target has.^[3]

Social impact theory was created by Bibb Latané in 1981 and consists of four basic rules which consider how individuals can be "sources or targets of social influence". Social impact is the result of social forces including the strength of the source of impact, the immediacy of the event, and the number of sources exerting the impact.Michael A. Hogg, Scott Tindale; Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes; John Wiley & Sons (2008); p.239; , The more targets of impact that exist, the less impact each individual target has.

社会影响理论由比布 · 拉坦内于1981年创立，包括四个基本规则，考虑个人如何成为”社会影响的来源或目标”。社会影响是社会力量作用的结果，包括影响源的强度、事件的直接性和影响源的数量。社会心理学手册: 群体过程; 约翰威立过程; 2008年; 第239页; 存在的影响目标越多，每个目标的影响就越小。

Original research

According to psychologist Bibb Latané, social impact is defined as any influence on individual feelings, thoughts or behavior that is created from the real, implied or imagined presence or actions of others. The application of social impact varies from diffusion of responsibility to social loafing, stage fright or persuasive communication. In 1981, Latané developed the social impact theory using three key variables:

Strength (S) is a net of all individual factors that make a person influential. It covers stable, trans-situational, intrapersonal factors — size, intellect, wealth — as well as dynamic, situation-specific relational components like belonging to the same group.
Immediacy (I) takes into account how recent the event occurred and whether or not there were other intervening factors
The number of sources (N) refers to the amount of sources of influence

With these variables, Latané developed three laws through formulas — social forces, psychosocial, and multiplication/division of impact.

According to psychologist Bibb Latané, social impact is defined as any influence on individual feelings, thoughts or behavior that is created from the real, implied or imagined presence or actions of others. The application of social impact varies from diffusion of responsibility to social loafing, stage fright or persuasive communication. In 1981, Latané developed the social impact theory using three key variables:

Strength (S) is a net of all individual factors that make a person influential. It covers stable, trans-situational, intrapersonal factors — size, intellect, wealth — as well as dynamic, situation-specific relational components like belonging to the same group.
Immediacy (I) takes into account how recent the event occurred and whether or not there were other intervening factors
The number of sources (N) refers to the amount of sources of influence

With these variables, Latané developed three laws through formulas — social forces, psychosocial, and multiplication/division of impact.

根据心理学家比伯 · 拉坦内的研究，社会影响被定义为由他人的真实、隐含或想象的存在或行为所产生的对个人感受、思想或行为的任何影响。社会影响力的应用从责任分散到社交游手好闲、怯场或说服式沟通不一而足。1981年，拉坦内利用三个关键变量建立了社会影响理论:

力量(s)是一张网，包含了所有使一个人具有影响力的个人因素。它涵盖了稳定的、跨情境的、内在的因素——规模、智力、财富——以及动态的、与具体情况相关的因素，比如属于同一个群体。直接性(i)考虑事件最近发生的方式以及是否有其他干预因素
来源的数量(n)是指影响来源的数量。利用这些变量，拉坦内通过公式发展了三个定律: 社会力量、心理社会和影响的增加/分裂。

Social forces

The social forces law states that i = f(S * I * N). Impact (i) is a function of the three variables multiplied and grows as each variable is increased. However, if a variable were to be 0 or significantly low, the overall impact would be affected.

= = = = 社会力量 = = = 社会力量定律指出 i = f (s * i * n)。影响(i)是三个变量相乘和随着每个变量的增加而增长的函数。然而，如果一个变量是0或显着低，整体的影响将受到影响。

Psychosocial law

The psychosocial law states that the most significant difference in social impact will occur in the transition from 0 to 1 source and as the number of sources increases, this difference will become even eventually. The equation Latané uses for this law is [math]\displaystyle{ Impact = s\cdot N^t }[/math] That is, some power (t) of the number of people (N) multiplied by the scaling constant (s) determines social impact. Latané applied this theory to previous studies done on imitation and conformity as well as on embarrassment. Asch's study of conformity in college students contradicts the psychosocial law, showing that one or two sources of social impact make little difference. However, Gerard, Wilhelmy, and Conolley conducted a similar study on conformity sampling from high school students. High school students were deemed less likely to be resistant to conformity than college students, and thus may be more generalizable, in this regard, than Asch's study. Gerard, Wilhelmy, and Conolley's study supported the psychosocial law, showing that the first few confederates had the greatest impact on conformity. Latané applied his law to imitation as well, using Milgram's gawking experiment. In this experiment various numbers of confederates stood on a street corner in New York craning and gawking at the sky. The results showed that more confederates meant more gawkers, and the change became increasingly insignificant as more confederates were present. In a study Latané and Harkins conducted on stage fright and embarrassment, the results also followed the psychosocial law showing that more audience members meant greater anxiety and that the greatest difference existed between 0 and 1 audience members.

The psychosocial law states that the most significant difference in social impact will occur in the transition from 0 to 1 source and as the number of sources increases, this difference will become even eventually. The equation Latané uses for this law is Impact = s\cdot N^t That is, some power (t) of the number of people (N) multiplied by the scaling constant (s) determines social impact. Latané applied this theory to previous studies done on imitation and conformity as well as on embarrassment. Asch's study of conformity in college students contradicts the psychosocial law, showing that one or two sources of social impact make little difference. However, Gerard, Wilhelmy, and Conolley conducted a similar study on conformity sampling from high school students. High school students were deemed less likely to be resistant to conformity than college students, and thus may be more generalizable, in this regard, than Asch's study. Gerard, Wilhelmy, and Conolley's study supported the psychosocial law, showing that the first few confederates had the greatest impact on conformity. Latané applied his law to imitation as well, using Milgram's gawking experiment. In this experiment various numbers of confederates stood on a street corner in New York craning and gawking at the sky. The results showed that more confederates meant more gawkers, and the change became increasingly insignificant as more confederates were present. In a study Latané and Harkins conducted on stage fright and embarrassment, the results also followed the psychosocial law showing that more audience members meant greater anxiety and that the greatest difference existed between 0 and 1 audience members.

= = = 心理社会法 = = 心理社会法指出，社会影响的最显著差异将发生在从0到1来源的过渡时期，随着来源数量的增加，这种差异最终将趋于平衡。Latané 用于这个定律的方程式是 Impact = s cdot n ^ t 也就是说，人数(n)乘以比例常数(s)的某个幂(t)决定了社会影响。拉坦内将这一理论应用于以前关于模仿和从众以及尴尬的研究。Asch 对大学生从众心理的研究违背了社会心理学的规律，表明一两个社会影响的来源几乎没有什么不同。然而，Gerard，Wilhelmy 和 Conolley 对高中生的从众心理进行了一项类似的研究。高中生被认为比大学生更不容易对从众心理产生抵触情绪，因此在这方面可能比 Asch 的研究更具普遍性。杰拉德、威廉米和科诺利的研究支持社会心理学定律，表明最初的几个邦联对从众心理有最大的影响。拉坦内也将他的定律应用于模仿，用米尔格拉姆的呆呆的实验。在这个实验中，许多同盟者站在纽约的一个街角伸长脖子，呆呆地望着天空。结果表明，越多的同盟者意味着越多的围观者，而且随着越来越多的同盟者的出现，这种变化变得越来越微不足道。在拉塔内和哈金斯进行的一项关于怯场和尴尬的研究中，结果也遵循了心理社会法则，表明观众越多意味着越焦虑，并且在0到1个观众之间存在着最大的差异。

Multiplication/divisions of impact

The third law of social impact states that the strength, immediacy, and number of targets play a role in social impact. That is, the more strength and immediacy and the greater number of targets in a social situation causes the social impact to be divided amongst all of the targets. The equation that represents this division is [math]\displaystyle{ Impact = f(1/(S\cdot I\cdot N)) }[/math] This law relates to diffusion of responsibility, in which individuals feel less accountable as the number of people present increases. In emergency situations, the impact of the emergency is reduced when more people are present.

The third law of social impact states that the strength, immediacy, and number of targets play a role in social impact. That is, the more strength and immediacy and the greater number of targets in a social situation causes the social impact to be divided amongst all of the targets. The equation that represents this division is Impact = f(1/(S\cdot I\cdot N)) This law relates to diffusion of responsibility, in which individuals feel less accountable as the number of people present increases. In emergency situations, the impact of the emergency is reduced when more people are present.

社会影响第三定律表明，目标的强度、直接性和数量在社会影响中起着重要作用。也就是说，一个社会情况下，力度越大，时间越紧迫，目标越多，社会影响就会在所有目标之间分配。这个等式表示的是影响 = f (1/(s cdot i cdot n))这个定律与责任分散有关，在这个定律中，随着在场人数的增加，个人感到责任减少。在紧急情况下，当有更多的人在场时，紧急情况的影响就会减少。

The social impact theory is both a generalizable and a specific theory. It uses one set of equations, which are applicable to many social situations. For example, the psychosocial law can be used to predict instances of conformity, imitation and embarrassment. Yet, it is also specific because the predictions that it makes are specific and can be applied to and observed in the world. The theory is falsifiable as well. It makes predictions through the use of equations; however, the equations may not be able to accurately predict the outcome of social situations. Social impact theory is also useful. It can be used to understand which social situations result in the greatest impact and which situations present exceptions to the rules.

While social impact theory explores social situations and can help predict the outcomes of social situations, it also has some shortcomings and questions that are left unresolved. The rules guiding the theory depict people as recipients that passively accept social impact and do not take into account the social impact that people may actively seek out. The model is also static, and does not fully compensate for the dynamics involved in social interactions. The theory is relatively new and fails to address some pertinent issues. These issues include finding more accurate ways to measure social outcomes, understanding the "t" exponent in psychosocial law, taking susceptibility into account, understanding how short-term consequences can develop into chronic consequences, application to group interactions, understanding the model's nature (descriptive vs. explanatory, generalization vs. theory).

The social impact theory is both a generalizable and a specific theory. It uses one set of equations, which are applicable to many social situations. For example, the psychosocial law can be used to predict instances of conformity, imitation and embarrassment. Yet, it is also specific because the predictions that it makes are specific and can be applied to and observed in the world. The theory is falsifiable as well. It makes predictions through the use of equations; however, the equations may not be able to accurately predict the outcome of social situations. Social impact theory is also useful. It can be used to understand which social situations result in the greatest impact and which situations present exceptions to the rules.

While social impact theory explores social situations and can help predict the outcomes of social situations, it also has some shortcomings and questions that are left unresolved. The rules guiding the theory depict people as recipients that passively accept social impact and do not take into account the social impact that people may actively seek out. The model is also static, and does not fully compensate for the dynamics involved in social interactions. The theory is relatively new and fails to address some pertinent issues. These issues include finding more accurate ways to measure social outcomes, understanding the "t" exponent in psychosocial law, taking susceptibility into account, understanding how short-term consequences can develop into chronic consequences, application to group interactions, understanding the model's nature (descriptive vs. explanatory, generalization vs. theory).

社会影响理论既是一种可以概括的理论，又是一种具体的理论。它使用一组适用于许多社会情况的方程式。例如，社会心理法则可以用来预测顺从、模仿和尴尬的情况。然而，它也是具体的，因为它做出的预测是具体的，可以应用到世界上并在世界上观察到。这个理论也是可证伪的。它通过使用方程式进行预测; 然而，方程式可能不能准确地预测社会情况的结果。社会影响理论也很有用。它可以用来理解哪些社会情况会产生最大的影响，哪些情况会对规则造成例外。虽然社会影响理论探讨了社会情境，可以帮助预测社会情境的结果，但它也有一些缺陷和未解决的问题。指导该理论的规则将人描述为被动地接受社会影响的接受者，而不考虑人们可能主动寻求的社会影响。这个模型也是静态的，不能完全补偿社会互动中的动态因素。这个理论相对较新，未能解决一些相关问题。这些问题包括找到更准确的方法来衡量社会结果，理解心理法则中的“ t”指数，考虑易感性，理解短期后果如何发展成为慢性后果，应用于群体互动，理解模型的性质(描述性对比解释性，概括性对比理论)。

Applying social impact theory

The social impact theory specifies the effects of social variables — strength, immediacy, and number of sources — but does not explain the nature of these influencing processes. There are various factors not considered by experimenters while implementing the theory. Concepts such as peripheral persuasion affect how communicators may be more credible to some individuals and untrustworthy to others. The variables are inconsistent from individual to individual, possibly associating strength with source credibility and attractiveness or immediacy with physical closeness. Therefore, in the application of the social impact theory, the idea of persuasiveness, the ability to induce someone with an opposing position to change, and supportiveness, the ability to help those who agree with someone's point of view to resist the influence of others, is introduced. Ultimately, an individual's likelihood of change and being influenced is a direct function of strength (persuasiveness), immediacy and the number of advocates and is a direct inverse function of strength (supportiveness), immediacy and number of target individuals.

= = 应用社会影响理论 = = 社会影响理论具体说明了社会变量的影响，即力度、直接性和来源数量，但没有解释这些影响过程的性质。有许多因素是实验者在执行理论时没有考虑到的。外围说服等概念会影响沟通者对某些人来说更可信，而对另一些人来说则不可信。这些变量在个体与个体之间是不一致的，可能将力量与来源的可信度、吸引力或即时性与身体接触联系在一起。因此，在社会影响理论的应用中，引入了说服力的概念，引导持相反立场的人改变的能力，支持力的概念，帮助持相同观点的人抵制他人影响的能力。最终，一个人改变和被影响的可能性是力量(说服力)、即时性和拥护者数量的直接函数，是力量(支持性)、即时性和目标个体数量的直接反函数。

Subsequent development

The dynamic social impact theory, as proposed by Bibb Latané and his colleagues, describes the influence of members between majority and minority groups. The theory serves as extension of the originating social impact theory (i.e., influence is determined by the strength, immediacy, and number of sources present) as it explains how groups, as complex systems, change and develop over time. Groups are constantly organizing and re-organizing into four basic patterns: consolidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity. These patterns are consistent with groups that are spatially distributed and interacting repeatedly over time.^[4]

The dynamic social impact theory, as proposed by Bibb Latané and his colleagues, describes the influence of members between majority and minority groups. The theory serves as extension of the originating social impact theory (i.e., influence is determined by the strength, immediacy, and number of sources present) as it explains how groups, as complex systems, change and develop over time. Groups are constantly organizing and re-organizing into four basic patterns: consolidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity. These patterns are consistent with groups that are spatially distributed and interacting repeatedly over time.Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group dynamics: New York: Wadsworth. [Chapter 7]

= = 后续发展 = = 比布 · 拉坦内及其同事提出的动态社会影响理论，描述了多数群体和少数群体之间成员的影响。该理论作为原始社会影响理论的延伸(即，影响力是由存在的强度、直接性和数量的来源决定的) ，因为它解释了群体作为复杂系统是如何随着时间变化和发展的。群组不断地组织和重新组织成四种基本模式: 合并、集群、相关性和持续的多样性。这些模式与随着时间的推移空间分布和重复相互作用的群体是一致的。(2009).集团动态: 纽约: 沃兹沃思。[第七章]

1. Consolidation – as individuals interact with each other regularly, their actions, attitudes, and opinions become more uniform. The opinions held by the majority tend to spread throughout the group, while the minority decreases in size.

1. Consolidation – as individuals interact with each other regularly, their actions, attitudes, and opinions become more uniform. The opinions held by the majority tend to spread throughout the group, while the minority decreases in size.

1.巩固-当个体之间有规律地相互作用时，他们的行为、态度和观点变得更加一致。多数人持有的观点倾向于在整个群体中传播，而少数人的数量在减少。

E.g., Individuals who live in the same college dormitory will, over time, develop similar attitudes on a variety of topics.

E.g., Individuals who live in the same college dormitory will, over time, develop similar attitudes on a variety of topics.

例如，住在同一个大学宿舍的人，随着时间的推移，会在各种各样的话题上发展出相似的态度。

2. Clustering – occurs when group members communicate more frequently as a consequence of close proximity. As the law of social impact suggests, individuals are susceptible to influence by their closest members, and so clusters of group members with similar opinions emerge in groups. Minority group members are often shielded from majority influence due to clustering. Therefore, subgroups can emerge which may possess similar ideas to one another, but hold different beliefs than the majority population.

2. Clustering – occurs when group members communicate more frequently as a consequence of close proximity. As the law of social impact suggests, individuals are susceptible to influence by their closest members, and so clusters of group members with similar opinions emerge in groups. Minority group members are often shielded from majority influence due to clustering. Therefore, subgroups can emerge which may possess similar ideas to one another, but hold different beliefs than the majority population.

2.群集-发生在群组成员通信更频繁的结果作为紧密接近。正如社会影响法则所指出的，个人很容易受到他们最亲近的成员的影响，因此群体成员中出现了具有相似意见的群体。少数群体成员通常由于聚集而不受大多数人的影响。因此，小群体可能会出现，它们可能彼此拥有相似的想法，但与大多数人持有不同的信念。

E.g., Neighbours on a sub-urban street convince other neighbours to form a community-watch group.

E.g., Neighbours on a sub-urban street convince other neighbours to form a community-watch group.

例如，一条近郊街道上的邻居说服其他邻居组成一个社区观察小组。

3. Correlation – over time, individual group members' opinions on a variety of issues (including issues that have never been openly discussed before) converge, so that their opinions become correlated.

3. Correlation – over time, individual group members' opinions on a variety of issues (including issues that have never been openly discussed before) converge, so that their opinions become correlated.

3.随着时间的推移，个别小组成员对各种问题(包括以前从未公开讨论过的问题)的意见会聚在一起，因此他们的意见会变得相互关联。

E.g., Individuals on an executive society (i.e., Board of Directors), find they agree on topics they have discussed throughout a conference - such as the best financial plan, but that they also agree on topics they have never discussed: the best restaurant to eat in the city.

E.g., Individuals on an executive society (i.e., Board of Directors), find they agree on topics they have discussed throughout a conference - such as the best financial plan, but that they also agree on topics they have never discussed: the best restaurant to eat in the city.

例如，执行社团(即董事会)中的个人发现他们在整个会议期间讨论的话题上达成了一致——例如最佳财务计划，但他们也在从未讨论过的话题上达成了一致: 城市中最好的就餐餐厅。

4. Continuing diversity – as mentioned previously, minority members are often shielded from majority influence due to clustering. Diversity exists if the minority group can resist majority influence and communicate with majority members. However, if the majority is large or minority members are physically isolated from one another, this diversity decreases.

4. Continuing diversity – as mentioned previously, minority members are often shielded from majority influence due to clustering. Diversity exists if the minority group can resist majority influence and communicate with majority members. However, if the majority is large or minority members are physically isolated from one another, this diversity decreases.

4.持续的多样性——正如前面提到的，少数族裔成员由于聚集而常常免受多数族裔的影响。如果少数群体能够抵制多数群体的影响并与多数群体成员沟通，多样性就存在。但是，如果大多数成员或少数成员在物理上彼此隔绝，这种多样性就会减少。

E.g., A jury of 10 members collect in a boardroom to provide a final verdict (must be unanimous). Two members of the jury disagree with the majority, and thus, delay the final decision (continues diversity).

E.g., A jury of 10 members collect in a boardroom to provide a final verdict (must be unanimous). Two members of the jury disagree with the majority, and thus, delay the final decision (continues diversity).

例如，一个由10名成员组成的陪审团在一个董事会会议室集合，以提供一个最终裁决(必须是一致的)。两个陪审团成员不同意多数意见，因此，延迟了最终决定(继续多样化)。

Contemporary research

In 1985 Mullen analyzed two of the factors that Latané associated with social impact theory. Mullen conducted a meta-analysis that examined the validity of the source strength and the source immediacy. The studies that were analyzed were sorted by the method of measurement used with the self-reported in one category and the behavior measurements in the other category. Mullen's results showed that the source strength and immediacy were only supported in cases in which tension was self-reported, and not when behavior was measured. He thus concluded that Latané's source strength and immediacy were weak and lacked consistency. Critics of Mullen's study, however, argue that perhaps not enough studies were available or included, which may have skewed his results and given him an inaccurate conclusion.

马伦在1985年分析了拉坦内与社会影响理论有关的两个因素。马伦进行了荟萃分析，检验了来源强度和来源直接性的有效性。分析的研究按照测量方法进行分类，一类是自我报告，另一类是行为测量。马伦的结果表明，来源强度和即时性只支持在紧张情况下的自我报告，而不是当行为测量。因此，他得出结论认为，拉塔内的资料来源力度和直接性薄弱，缺乏连贯性。然而，马伦研究的批评者认为，可能没有足够的研究可用或包括，这可能扭曲了他的结果，给了他一个不准确的结论。

A study conducted by Constantine Sedikides and Jeffrey M. Jackson took another look at the role of strength and within social impact theory. This study was conducted in a bird house at a zoo. In one scenario, an experimenter dressed as a bird keeper walked into the bird house and told visitors that leaning on the railing was prohibited. This was considered the high-strength scenario because of the authority that a zookeeper possesses within a zoo. The other scenario involved an experimenter dressed in ordinary clothes addressing the visitors with the same message. The results of the study showed that visitors responded better to the high-strength scenario, with fewer individuals leaning on the railing after the zookeeper had told them not to. The study also tested the effect that immediacy had on social impact. This was done by measuring the incidences of leaning on the rail both immediately after the message was delivered and at a later point in time. The results showed that immediacy played a role in determining social impact since there were fewer people leaning on the rails immediately after the message. The visitors in the bird house were studied as members of the group they came with to determine how number of targets would influence the targets' behavior. The group size ranged from 1 to 6 and the results showed that those in larger groups were less likely to comply with the experimenter's message than those in smaller groups. All of these findings support the parameters of Latané's social impact theory.

君士坦丁 · 斯蒂基德斯和杰弗里 · m · 杰克逊进行的一项研究，在社会影响理论的框架内，对力量的作用进行了另一次研究。这项研究是在动物园的鸟舍中进行的。在一个场景中，一个实验者打扮成鸟类饲养员走进鸟屋，告诉参观者不能靠在栏杆上。这被认为是高强度的场景，因为动物园管理员在动物园内拥有权限。另一个场景是一个穿着普通衣服的实验者用同样的信息对来访者说话。研究结果表明，游客对高强度的场景反应更好，在动物园管理员告诉他们不要靠在栏杆上的个体更少。这项研究还测试了即时性对社会影响的作用。这是通过测量信息传递后立即和稍后时间点上靠在铁轨上的事件发生率来完成的。研究结果表明，即时性在决定社会影响方面起着重要作用，因为很少有人在收到信息后立即倚靠在栏杆上。研究人员将鸟屋里的访客作为他们所在小组的成员进行研究，以确定目标的数量将如何影响目标的行为。小组的人数从1到6不等，结果显示大组的人比小组的人更不愿意遵守实验者的信息。所有这些发现都支持拉坦内的社会影响理论。

Kipling D. Williams, and Karen B. Williams theorized that social impact would vary depending on the underlying motive of compliance. When compliance is simply a mechanism to induce the formation of a positive impression, stronger sources should produce a greater social impact. When it is an internal motive that induces compliance, the strength of the source shouldn't matter. Williams and Williams designed a study in which two persuasion methods were utilized, one that would evoke external motivation and one that would evoke internal motivation. Using these techniques, experimenters went from door to door using one of the techniques to attempt to collect money for a zoo. The foot-in-the-door technique was utilized to evoke the internal motive. In this technique, the experimenter would make an initial request that was relatively small, and gradually request larger and larger amounts. This is internally motivated because the target's self-perception is altered to feel more helpful after the original contribution. The door-in-the-face technique, on the other hand, involves the experimenter asking for a large amount first; and when the target declines, they ask for a much smaller amount as a concession. This technique draws on external motivation because the request for a concession makes one feel obliged to comply. The experiment was conducted with low-strength and high-strength experimenters. Those who were approached by higher-strength experimenters were more likely to contribute money. Using the different persuasion approaches did not produce statistically significant results; however, it did support Williams and Williams hypothesis that the strength of the experimenter would heighten the effects of the door-in-the-face technique, but have minimal effect on the foot-in-the-door technique

吉卜林 · d · 威廉姆斯和卡伦 · b · 威廉姆斯提出的理论认为，社会影响会随着服从的潜在动机而变化。如果服从仅仅是一种诱导形成积极印象的机制，那么更强有力的来源应该产生更大的社会影响。当这是一个内在的动机，导致顺从，力量的来源不应该问题。威廉姆斯和威廉姆斯设计了一项研究，其中使用了两种说服方法，一种是唤起外部动机，另一种是唤起内部动机。使用这些技术，实验者挨家挨户地尝试为动物园募集资金。得寸进尺法被用来唤起内在的动机。在这种技术中，实验者会先提出一个相对较小的要求，然后逐渐要求越来越大的数量。这是内在的动机，因为目标的自我认知在最初的贡献之后会变得更有帮助。另一方面，实验者首先要求大量的以退为进法; 当目标减少时，他们要求小得多的数量作为让步。这种方法利用了外部动机，因为要求让步会让人觉得有义务服从。实验由低强度、高强度的实验者进行。那些被高强度的实验者接触的人更有可能捐款。使用不同的说服方法并没有产生统计学意义上的显著结果; 然而，它确实支持了 Williams 和 Williams 的假设，即实验者的力量会提高以退为进法的效果，但对得寸进尺法的影响微乎其微

One study conducted by Helen Harton and colleagues examined the four patterns of dynamic social impact theory. The study included one large (six rows of 15-30 people) and two small introductory psychology classes (one group per class). Ten questions were chosen from course-readings and either distributed as a hand-out, read aloud, or presented on an overhead projector. Students were given ~1 min per question to mark their pre-discussion answers. The students were then instructed to discuss each question for 1 or 2 minutes with their neighbours (on either side), but only about the assigned questions - which answer they chose and why. There was little initial diversity on two of the questions - one was too easy (majority got it), and the other was too difficult (majority agreeing on the wrong answer). Consolidation- overall, discussion-induced consolidation occurred in 7 out of the 8 independent groups, indicating majority members converting minority members. Clustering- prior to discussion, neighbours answers were evenly distributed. Post-discussion, groups exhibited a significant degree of spatial clustering, as neighbours influenced each other to become more similar. Correlation- there was an increased tendency for an answer on one question to be associated with an answer on another question that was completely unrelated content-wise. Continuing Diversity- none of the 8 groups reached unanimity on any of the questions - meaning, minority group members did not completely conform to majority group members.^[5]

One study conducted by Helen Harton and colleagues examined the four patterns of dynamic social impact theory. The study included one large (six rows of 15-30 people) and two small introductory psychology classes (one group per class). Ten questions were chosen from course-readings and either distributed as a hand-out, read aloud, or presented on an overhead projector. Students were given ~1 min per question to mark their pre-discussion answers. The students were then instructed to discuss each question for 1 or 2 minutes with their neighbours (on either side), but only about the assigned questions - which answer they chose and why. There was little initial diversity on two of the questions - one was too easy (majority got it), and the other was too difficult (majority agreeing on the wrong answer). Consolidation- overall, discussion-induced consolidation occurred in 7 out of the 8 independent groups, indicating majority members converting minority members. Clustering- prior to discussion, neighbours answers were evenly distributed. Post-discussion, groups exhibited a significant degree of spatial clustering, as neighbours influenced each other to become more similar. Correlation- there was an increased tendency for an answer on one question to be associated with an answer on another question that was completely unrelated content-wise. Continuing Diversity- none of the 8 groups reached unanimity on any of the questions - meaning, minority group members did not completely conform to majority group members.

海伦 · 哈顿及其同事进行的一项研究检验了动态社会影响理论的四种模式。这项研究包括一个大的(六排15-30人)和两个小的心理学导论班(每班一组)。从课程阅读材料中选出10个问题，分发给学生，或者大声朗读，或者以透镜式投影仪形式提出。每个问题给学生1分钟的时间来标记讨论前的答案。然后学生们被要求与他们的邻居(任何一方)讨论每个问题1到2分钟，但是只讨论指定的问题——他们选择的答案和为什么。在两个问题上，最初几乎没有多样性——一个太容易(大多数人都明白) ，另一个太难(大多数人都同意错误的答案)。合并——总体而言，在8个独立团体中，7个团体进行了讨论导致的合并，表明多数成员改变了少数成员。聚类——在讨论之前，邻居的答案是均匀分布的。讨论后，群体表现出显著的空间聚集性，因为邻居之间相互影响变得更加相似。相关性——一个问题的答案与另一个内容完全不相关的问题的答案相关联的趋势有所增加。持续的多样性——8个群体中没有一个在任何问题上达成一致——意思是，少数群体成员不完全符合多数群体成员。

Due to social media's influence, there has been movement towards e-commerce. Researchers have since looked into the relationship between social media influence and visit and purchase intentions within individuals.^[6]

Due to social media's influence, there has been movement towards e-commerce. Researchers have since looked into the relationship between social media influence and visit and purchase intentions within individuals.Kwahk, Ge (2012).

由于社交媒体的影响，电子商务已经开始发展。此后，研究人员调查了社交媒体影响力与个人访问和购买意愿之间的关系。郭先生(2012)。

Most recently, Rodrigo Perez-Vega, Kathryn Waite, and Kevin O'Gorman ^[7] suggest that the theory is also relevant in the context of social media. Empirical research on this context has found support for the effects of numbers of sources (i.e. likes) in performance outcomes such as box office sales.^[8] Furthermore, Babajide Osatuyi and Katia Passerini ^[9] operationalized strength, immediacy, and number using Social Network Analysis centrality measures, i.e., betweeness, closeness, and degree centralities to test two of the rules stipulated in social impact theory. They compared the influence of using Twitter and discussion board in a learning management system (e.g., Moodle and Blackboard) on student performance, measured as final grade in a course. The results provide support for the first law, i.e., impact (grade) as a multiplicative resultant of strength, immediacy, and number of interactions among students. Additional interesting insights were observed in this study that educators ought to consider to maximize the integration of new social technologies into pedagogy.

Most recently, Rodrigo Perez-Vega, Kathryn Waite, and Kevin O'Gorman suggest that the theory is also relevant in the context of social media. Empirical research on this context has found support for the effects of numbers of sources (i.e. likes) in performance outcomes such as box office sales. Furthermore, Babajide Osatuyi and Katia Passerini operationalized strength, immediacy, and number using Social Network Analysis centrality measures, i.e., betweeness, closeness, and degree centralities to test two of the rules stipulated in social impact theory. They compared the influence of using Twitter and discussion board in a learning management system (e.g., Moodle and Blackboard) on student performance, measured as final grade in a course. The results provide support for the first law, i.e., impact (grade) as a multiplicative resultant of strength, immediacy, and number of interactions among students. Additional interesting insights were observed in this study that educators ought to consider to maximize the integration of new social technologies into pedagogy.

最近，罗德里戈 · 佩雷斯-维加、凯瑟琳 · 韦特和凯文 · 奥戈尔曼认为这一理论也适用于社交媒体。在这方面，实证研究已经找到了支持来源数量的影响(即。喜欢)的表现结果，如票房收入。此外，Babajide Osatuyi 和 Katia Passerini 运用社会网络分析中心性测度，即中间性、贴近性和度集中性，来检验社会影响理论中规定的两个规则。他们比较了在学习管理系统(例如，Moodle 和 Blackboard)中使用 Twitter 和讨论板对学生表现的影响。研究结果为第一定律提供了支持，即冲击(分数)是学生之间力量、即时性和互动次数的多重结果。在这项研究中还观察到一些有趣的见解，教育工作者应该考虑将新的社会技术最大限度地融入教育学。

References

↑ Karau, Steven; Williams, Kipling (October 1995). "Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 4 (5): 135. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772570. JSTOR 20182353.

↑ Michael A. Hogg, Scott Tindale; Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes; John Wiley & Sons (2008); p.239;

,

↑ Karau, Steven; Williams, Kipling (October 1995). "Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 4 (5): 135. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772570. JSTOR 20182353.
↑ Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group dynamics: New York: Wadsworth. [Chapter 7]
↑ Helen Harton, Laura Green, Craig Jackson, Bibb Latane (1998). "Demonstrating Dynamic Social Impact: Consolidation, Clustering, Correlation, and (Sometimes) the Correct Answer". Teaching of Psychology. 25: 31–35. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2501_9.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Kwahk, Ge (2012).
↑ Perez-Vega, R.; Waite, K.; O'Gorman, K. (2016). "Social impact theory: An examination of how immediacy operates as an influence upon social media interaction in Facebook fan pages" (PDF). The Marketing Review. 16 (3): 299–321. doi:10.1362/146934716x14636478977791.
↑ Ding, C.; Cheng, H. K.; Duan, Y.; Jin, Y. (2017). "The power of the "like" button: The impact of social media on box office". Decision Support Systems. 94: 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.11.002. hdl:10397/65742.
↑ Osatuyi, B; Passerini, K. (2016). "Twittermania: Understanding how social media technologies impact engagement and academic performance of a new generation of learners". Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 39: 509–528. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.03923.

Sources

Latané, B (1981). "The psychology of social impact". American Psychologist. 36 (4): 343–356. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343.
Latané, B.; L' Herrou, T. (1996). "Spatial clustering in the conformity game:Dynamic social impact in electronic games". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70 (6): 1218–1230. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.6.1218.
Sedikides, C.; Jackson, J.M. (1990). "Social impact theory: a field test of source strength, source immediacy, and number of targets". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 11 (3): 273–281. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1103_4.
Williams, K.D.; Williams, K.B. (1989). "Impact of source strength on two compliance techniques". Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 10 (2): 149–159. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1002_5.
Kwahk, K.Y.; Ge, X. (2012). The Effects of Social Media on E-Commerce: A Perspective of Social Impact Theory. pp. 1814–1823. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2012.564. ISBN 978-1-4577-1925-7.
Nowak, Andrzej; Szamrej, Jacek; Latané, Bibb (1990). "From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact". Psychological Review. 97 (3): 362–376. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.362.
Latané, Bibb (1996). "Dynamic Social Impact: The Creation of Culture by Communication". Journal of Communication. 46 (4): 13–25. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01501.x.

Sources

External links

http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/latane.htm

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/lingua1.pdf

http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/rgoldsto/complex/nowak90.pdf

Category:Influence (social and political) Category:Sociological theories Category:Attitude change

范畴: 影响(社会政治)范畴: 社会学理论范畴: 态度转变

This page was moved from wikipedia:en:Social impact theory. Its edit history can be viewed at 社会影响理论/edithistory

[1] Karau, Steven; Williams, Kipling (October 1995). "Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 4 (5): 135. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772570. JSTOR 20182353.

[2] Michael A. Hogg, Scott Tindale; Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes; John Wiley & Sons (2008); p.239;
v
t
e
Inline tags
Attribution

{{Attribution needed}}

{{By whom}}

{{Weasel-inline}}

{{Which?}}

{{Who}}

Citation

{{Better source}}

{{Citation needed}}
{{Citation needed span}}

{{Reference necessary}}

{{Citation needed (lead)}}

{{Failed verification}}

{{Full}}

{{Primary source-inline}}

{{Request quotation}}

{{Retracted}}

{{Third-party-inline}}

Incomplete

{{Author missing}}

{{Author incomplete}}

{{Date missing}}

{{ISBN missing}}

{{Page needed}}

{{Publisher missing}}

{{Title incomplete}}

{{Year missing}}

{{Dead link}}

Content

{{Contradict-inline}}

{{Contradiction-inline}}

{{Dubious|talk page section name}}

{{Examples}}

{{Inconsistent}}

{{List fact}}

{{Lopsided}}

{{POV-statement}}

Date and place

{{Clarify timeframe}}

{{Quantify}}

{{Update after}}

{{Update-small}}

{{When}}

{{Where}}

{{Year needed}}

Wikification

{{Disambiguation needed}}

{{Pronunciation needed}}

Wording

{{Ambiguous}}

{{Awkward}}

{{Buzz}}

{{Clarify}}

{{Clarify span}}

{{Definition}}

{{Elucidate}}

{{Expand acronym}}

{{Technical-statement}}

{{Vague|optional message to be displayed on mouseover}}

{{Why?}}

Category
,

[3] v

[4] t

[5] e

[6] {{Attribution needed}}

[7] {{By whom}}

[8] {{Weasel-inline}}

[9] {{Which?}}

[10] {{Who}}

[11] {{Better source}}

[12] {{Citation needed}}
{{Citation needed span}}

{{Reference necessary}}

[13] {{Citation needed span}}

[14] {{Reference necessary}}

[15] {{Citation needed (lead)}}

[16] {{Failed verification}}

[17] {{Full}}

[18] {{Primary source-inline}}

[19] {{Request quotation}}

[20] {{Retracted}}

[21] {{Third-party-inline}}

[22] {{Author missing}}

[23] {{Author incomplete}}

[24] {{Date missing}}

[25] {{ISBN missing}}

[26] {{Page needed}}

[27] {{Publisher missing}}

[28] {{Title incomplete}}

[29] {{Year missing}}

[30] {{Dead link}}

[31] {{Contradict-inline}}

[32] {{Contradiction-inline}}

[33] {{Dubious|talk page section name}}

[34] {{Examples}}

[35] {{Inconsistent}}

[36] {{List fact}}

[37] {{Lopsided}}

[38] {{POV-statement}}

[39] {{Clarify timeframe}}

[40] {{Quantify}}

[41] {{Update after}}

[42] {{Update-small}}

[43] {{When}}

[44] {{Where}}

[45] {{Year needed}}

[46] {{Disambiguation needed}}

[47] {{Pronunciation needed}}

[48] {{Ambiguous}}

[49] {{Awkward}}

[50] {{Buzz}}

[51] {{Clarify}}

[52] {{Clarify span}}

[53] {{Definition}}

[54] {{Elucidate}}

[55] {{Expand acronym}}

[56] {{Technical-statement}}

[57] {{Vague|optional message to be displayed on mouseover}}

[58] {{Why?}}

[3] Karau, Steven; Williams, Kipling (October 1995). "Social Loafing: Research Findings, Implications, and Future Directions". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 4 (5): 135. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772570. JSTOR 20182353.

[4] Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group dynamics: New York: Wadsworth. [Chapter 7]

[5] Helen Harton, Laura Green, Craig Jackson, Bibb Latane (1998). "Demonstrating Dynamic Social Impact: Consolidation, Clustering, Correlation, and (Sometimes) the Correct Answer". Teaching of Psychology. 25: 31–35. doi:10.1207/s15328023top2501_9.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[6] Kwahk, Ge (2012).

[7] Perez-Vega, R.; Waite, K.; O'Gorman, K. (2016). "Social impact theory: An examination of how immediacy operates as an influence upon social media interaction in Facebook fan pages" (PDF). The Marketing Review. 16 (3): 299–321. doi:10.1362/146934716x14636478977791.

[8] Ding, C.; Cheng, H. K.; Duan, Y.; Jin, Y. (2017). "The power of the "like" button: The impact of social media on box office". Decision Support Systems. 94: 77–84. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.11.002. hdl:10397/65742.

[9] Osatuyi, B; Passerini, K. (2016). "Twittermania: Understanding how social media technologies impact engagement and academic performance of a new generation of learners". Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 39: 509–528. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.03923.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

社会影响理论

目录

Original research

Social forces

Psychosocial law

Multiplication/divisions of impact

Applying social impact theory

Subsequent development

Contemporary research

References

Sources

Sources

External links

External links

导航菜单

搜索