Social Influence, Social Networks, and Convergence and Divergence Processes

• In Event: Communication, Social Networks, and Changes in Attitude Structures: Paths towards Belief Convergence, Divergence, and Equilibrium

Abstract

Simple models of communication suggest that greater communication leads to greater homogeneity of beliefs (the convergence hypothesis). In this presentation we focus on interaction processes that are embedded in social networks and consider the micro-mechanisms that have implications for macro-change (i.e., convergence or divergence of beliefs within the network). Bochner and Insko (1966) posited four responses to influence attempts: “conformity to the communicator's point of view, disparagement of the communicator, persuasion of the communicator that he is incorrect, and obtained social support from other like-minded individuals.” Conformity, an interpersonal process that should lead to convergence, is consistent with the psychological processes of balance and dissonance, as discussed, for example, by Heider (1946), Newcomb (1953), Festinger (1957), Cartwright and Harary (1956), and Feather (1967; see also Fink & Chen, 1995; Kincaid, Yum, Woelfel, & Barnett, 1983). Research on the other three processes (communicator disparagement, persuasion of the communicator, and obtaining social support) is more limited (but see Bochner & Insko, 1966; Kaplowitz, Fink, Armstrong, & Bauer, 1986). Beyond the four responses by targets to influence attempts suggested by Bochner and Insko, Hirschman (1970) suggested a physical exit response and Lewin (1935) suggested psychological exit. Exit responses have been linked to network position by, for example, Feeley and Barnett (1997). Exit may also result from actions of an agent of influence: Schachter (1951), for example, suggested that agents push non-compliant targets out of social networks via rejection (“excommunication”). We will present research relating responses to social influence as affecting network convergence and as being determined, in part, by one’s position in a social network.

Authors

• Edward Fink, University of Maryland

• Rachel Smith, Penn State University