Compliance Dynamics Within a Simulated Friendship Network I: The Effects of Agency, Tactic, and Node Centrality

Abstract

This study investigated the structural causes of perceptions of power and the way that these perceptions create expectations regarding influence attempts. It applied measures derived from dynamic social impact theory to model predictions of target compliance and agent response to an influence attempt. Sociograms provided the structure within which compliance dynamics were investigated. Results from an experiment (N = 458) showed that structural positions with greater eigenvector and betweenness centrality generated stronger perceived power, and that observers' attributions regarding responses to a compliance request follow a systematic three-step process-agent acts, target responds, and agent reacts. The model, reflecting agency, influence tactic, and power, formalizes the attributional process that observers employ when evaluating compliance requests.

Compliance Dynamics Within a Friendship Network II: Structural Positions Used to Garner Social Support

“…Social influence and its associated responses are processes in which social context and communication are profoundly interrelated. Our findings indicate that position in a social network shapes perceptions of power and plays a critical role in how participants think about responding to influence (Smith & Fink, ). These experiments document differences in participant's reactions to interpersonal influence, including the use of social support—a notion presented by Bochner and Insko almost fifty years ago but never tested.…”

“…We suggest that the severity of influence attempts (i.e., social strain) and the perceptions of power within a social network predict which targets of an influence attempt are likely to seek social support; thus, those targets seeking social support are not a random subset of network members. Social support may be sought by (1) all targets, (2) less powerful targets, (3) targets with less supportive impact than the agents have persuasive impact (i.e., more positive relative influence; see Nowak, Szamrej, & Latané, ; Smith & Fink, , p. 238), and (4) targets with more supportive impact than the agents have persuasive impact (i.e., more negative relative influence). Below we provide the theoretical rationales for these alternative predictions.…”

“…If influence attempts generate stress because of power dynamics, then targets with less power may be especially stressed by the influence attempt and in relatively greater need of social support. One aspect of a social situation that influences a target's power is his or her position within a social network, and network centrality has been found to predict observers' perceptions of a target's power (Smith & Fink, ).…”

“…In contrast, persuasion focuses on altering someone's beliefs, attitudes, or behavior but not “hurt[ing] the target directly as a consequence of that change or lack thereof” (Fink et al, , p. 297). Persuasion may be perceived to be a fallback position when agents hold less power than their targets (Smith & Fink, ). Fink et al () reported that persuasion is considered to be less severe and involves minor relational transgressions as compared to threats.…”

“…If influence attempts generate stress because of power dynamics, then targets with less power may be especially stressed by the influence attempt and in relatively greater need of social support. One aspect of a social situation that influences a target's power is his or her position within a social network, and network centrality has been found to predict observers' perceptions of a target's power (Smith & Fink, 2010). There are several different measures of network centrality, and this study focuses on network members' eigenvector centrality and betweenness centrality (Borgatti, 2005;Newman, 2010;Wasserman & Faust, 1994).…”