Social Influence Online: The Impact of Social Validation and Likability on Compliance

Text-based communication via the Internet has provided new opportunities to study social influence and persuasion. Specifically, Guadagno and Cialdini (2005) contend that the effectiveness of social influence attempts have yet to be thoroughly investigated online. To test Guadagno and Cialdini’s contention, the present study examined whether the social influence principles of likability and social validation impacted individuals’ willingness to comply with a request when the setting is online. Results revealed that social validation affected compliance, but communicator likability did not. Thus, our results indicate that contrary to previous work in offline contexts, not all social influence principles are effective online. Explanations for these differences are discussed.

[1]  J. Finn,et al.  A descriptive study of e-counsellor attitudes, ethics, and practice , 2010 .

[2]  M. Zanna,et al.  Persuasion as a function of self-awareness in computer-mediated communication , 1989 .

[3]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Running head : ONLINE PERSUASION AND COMPLIANCE Online Persuasion and Compliance : Social Influence on the Internet and Beyond , 2004 .

[4]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Social Influence and Computer Mediated Communication , 2008, Handbook of Research on Computer Mediated Communication.

[5]  Larry D. Rosen.  Teaching the iGeneration , 2011 .

[6]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  The homeless use Facebook?! Similarities of social network use between college students and homeless young adults , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[7]  J. A. Edinger,et al.  Nonverbal involvement and social control. , 1983 .

[8]  Nicolas Guéguen,et al.  Fund-Raising on the Web: The Effect of an Electronic Foot-in-the-Door on Donation , 2001, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[9]  R. Peterson.  On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second‐Order Meta‐analysis , 2001 .

[10]  Russell Spears,et al.  COMPUTER-MEDIATED COMMUNICATION, DEINDIVIDUATION AND GROUP DECISION-MAKING , 1991 .

[11]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[12]  A. Eagly,et al.  Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. , 2000 .

[13]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Online persuasion: An examination of gender differences in computer-mediated interpersonal influence. , 2002 .

[14]  Russell Spears,et al.  Computer-Mediated Communication, De-Individuation and Group Decision-Making , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[15]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Persuade him by email, but see her in person: Online persuasion revisited , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[16]  S. Asch.  Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[17]  Vimla L. Patel,et al.  Viewpoint: Science and Practice: A Case for Medical Informatics as a Local Science of Design , 1998, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[18]  J. O. Whittaker,et al.  A Repetition of Asch's “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment” , 1957 .

[19]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Getting to know you: Face-to-face versus online interactions , 2011, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  T. Postmes,et al.  Social Influence in Computer-Mediated Communication: The Effects of Anonymity on Group Behavior , 2001 .

[21]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  Antecedents and Consequences of Online Social Interactions , 2007 .

[22]  R. C. Sinclair,et al.  Incidental moods, source likeability, and persuasion: Liking motivates message elaboration in happy people , 2010 .

[23]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[24]  Noah J. Goldstein,et al.  Social influence: compliance and conformity. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[25]  Nicolas Guéguen,et al.  What is in a name? An effect of similarity in computer-mediated communication , 2010 .

[26]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  Plan 9 From Cyberspace: The Implications of the Internet for Personality and Social Psychology , 2000 .

[27]  Nicolas Guéguen.  Foot-inthe-door technique and computer-mediated communication , 2001 .

[28]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[29]  Nicolas Guéguen,et al.  Solicitation by E-Mail and Solicitor's Status: A Field Study of Social Influence on the Web , 2002, Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw..

[30]  S. Belmore.  Determinants of attention during impression formation. , 1987 .

[31]  T. Postmes,et al.  Breaching or Building Social Boundaries? , 1998 .

[32]  R. Cialdini.  Influence: Science and Practice , 1984 .

[33]  A. Barak,et al.  A Comprehensive Review and a Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Internet-Based Psychotherapeutic Interventions , 2008 .

[34]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality differences in social networking use , 2012, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[35]  A. Eagly.  Sex differences in social behavior : a social-role interpretation , 1987 .

[36]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[37]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. , 1983 .

[38]  Nicolas Guéguen.  Foot-in-the-door technique and computer-mediated communication , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[39]  Katelyn Y. A. McKenna,et al.  The internet and social life. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[40]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Consistency-based compliance across cultures☆ , 2007 .

[41]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Cognitive and strategic processes in small groups: effects of anonymity of the self and anonymity of the group on social influence. , 2002, The British journal of social psychology.

[42]  Daantje Derks,et al.  Emoticons and Online Message Interpretation , 2008 .

[43]  P. Marik,et al.  A Descriptive Study , 2015 .