According to the diamond model of social response (Nail, 1989;Willis, 1965). a bidimensional response space is necessary to provide for the possible responses in social influence settings. Experiment 1 tested diamond model predictions in a context that simulated social influence processes. Evidence was found for each of the responses postulated by the diamond model: conformity, anticonformity, independence and self-anticonformity, The aksmiptiw constructs of the diamond model were shown to correspond to an extended version of the expfanatory constructs of Deutsch & Gerard's (1955) theory of informational influence. Experiment 2 tested this extended theory in a setting with greater experimental realism than Expt 1. Interestingly, Expt 2 found evidence for informational influence: conformity, independence and self-anticonformity, but not informational anticonformity. Overall, the data support the bidimensional diamond model over any of the competing unidimensional formulations.* Requests for reprints. Paul R. Nail and Gregory Lynn Rurhthe diamond model can be viewed as a synthesis of the nonconformity-conformity and independence-conformity models. Like the nonconformity-conformity model, the diamond model requires the degree of agreement between the target and source be assessed after each influence trial. Yet, like the independence-conformity model, the degree of movement by the target on each trial must also be assessed. Nail (1989) demonstrated that with respect to operational definitions, the diamond model is really nothing more than a Cartesian plane as used in secondary school mathematics classes. In his reformulated version of the model, absolute movement scores are plotted on the horizontal x-axis and net agreement scores are plotted on the vertical y-axis. The result is a diamond-like response space, with conformity, independence, anticonformity, and self-anticonformity falling at the apices.According to the logic of the diamond model, just as anticonformity is the opposite of conformity, self-anticonformity is the opposite of independence. With conformity and anticonformity, the group is the source of reference, and in the pure forms, the person behaves so as to end up in either complete agreement or disagreement, respectively, with the group. With pure independence and pure self-anticonformity, in contrast, the source of reference is the Jeg, and the person behaves so as to end up in either complete agreement or disagreement, respectively, with the self.Even though the diamond model provides a more refined conceptualization of conformity and its alternatives than competing models, it has never been widely accepted or utilized as a model for research (Chu, 1979;and Wallace, Becker, Coppel & Cox, 1983 are rare exceptions). There are probably several reasons for this lack of acceptance, but one is undoubtedly the Willis-Nail notion of self-anticonformity. One problem with self-anticonformity is that contrary to the other diamond model responses, it does not seem intuitively reasonable. Moreover, Willis neve...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.