Social Influence Online

Social influence is typically defined as a change in an individual’s attitudes, behaviors, or beliefs due to real or imagined external pressure (Cialdini, 2009). By extension, online social influence is any attempt to change attitudes, behaviors or beliefs via the Internet or other technological medium (Guadagno & Cialdini, 2005). As technology advances, and becomes more portable (smart phones, tablets, etc.), so have the avenues for technology-mediated social influence appeals. Influence attempts via communication mediums such as webpages, email, instant messaging, SMS, and social networks, individuals in contemporary society are regularly targeted by a pervasive, portable source of constant consumer influence. Consider, for example, the number of influence attempts experienced by an individual with a smart phone and a laptop going about his/her daily activities—checking email, browsing websites, visiting social networks, etc. We actually attempted this -the first author counted approximately 500 influence attempts in less than ten minutes before he gave in to the need to shield himself from the barrage of information overload (Guadagno, Okdie, & Muscanell, 2013). To facilitate targeted advertising, Google and other online titans have implemented both “featured search results,” as well as targeted advertising based on individuals’ search histories and information stored on their computers, (Rosso & Jansen, 2010). In a relatively short period of time, targeted influence appeals have become commonplace online. Furthermore, emerging evidence suggests these online attempts are quite successful (Kaptein & Eckles, 2012). In this entry, we discuss the dynamic phenomenon of social influence in online contexts while highlighting how social influence processes have progressed and continue to change in concordance with technological advancements. First, we will review Cialdini’s (2009) theoretical framework of social influence. Next, we discuss how interactions via technology differ from face-to-face interactions. In doing so, we explore the magnitude of these various differences by relating these concepts to the most current literature on social influence across various communication mediums and technologies. Finally, we will discuss the implications of our review and offer some suggestions for future research on social influence in today’s wired world.

[1]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Social Influence Online: The Impact of Social Validation and Likability on Compliance , 2013 .

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

[3]  Felipe Korzenny,et al.  A Theory of Electronic Propinquity , 1978 .

[4]  Dean Eckles,et al.  Heterogeneity in the Effects of Online Persuasion , 2012 .

[5]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Preference for consistency and social influence: A review of current research findings , 2010 .

[6]  J. Freedman,et al.  Compliance without pressure: the foot-in-the-door technique. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  J. Burger.  The Foot-in-the-Door Compliance Procedure: A Multiple-Process Analysis and Review , 1999, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[8]  M. Brewer.  In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. , 1979 .

[9]  Brad J. Sagarin,et al.  Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Social Influence Online: A Tale of Gender Differences in the Effectiveness of Authority Cues , 2013, Int. J. Interact. Commun. Syst. Technol..

[11]  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..

[12]  J. Bailenson,et al.  Virtual Humans and Persuasion: The Effects of Agency and Behavioral Realism , 2007 .

[13]  Bradley M. Okdie,et al.  Have We All Just Become “Robo-Sapiens”? Reflections on Social Influence Processes in the Internet Age , 2013 .

[14]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique , 1975 .

[15]  A. Gouldner.  THE NORM OF RECIPROCITY: A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT * , 1960 .

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

[17]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Validation and Application of Electronic Propinquity Theory to Computer-Mediated Communication in Groups , 2008, Commun. Res..

[18]  Bernard J. Jansen,et al.  Brand Names as Keywords in Sponsored Search Advertising , 2010, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[19]  Paul W. Eastwick,et al.  Is it a game? Evidence for social influence in the virtual world , 2009 .

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

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

[22]  J. Blascovich.  Social influence within immersive virtual environments , 2002 .

[23]  H. Tajfel.  Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations , 1982 .

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

[25]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

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

[27]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion , 1984 .

[28]  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..