Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self‐categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization*

Abstract

We contrast two theoretical approaches to social influence, one stressing interpersonal dependence, conceptualized as normative and informational influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), and the other stressing group membership, conceptualized as selfcategorization and referent informational influence (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987). We argue that both social comparisons to reduce uncertainty and the existence of normative pressure to comply depend on perceiving the source of influence as belonging to one's own category. This study tested these two approaches using three influence paradigms. First we demonstrate that, in Sherifs (1936) autokinetic effect paradigm, the impact of confederates on the formation of a norm decreases as their membership of a different category is made more salient to subjects. Second, in the Asch (1956) conformity paradigm, surveillance effectively exerrs normative pressure ifdone by an in-group but not by an out-group. In-group influence decreases and out-group influence increases when subjects respond privately. Self-report data indicate that in-groupconfederates create more subjective uncertainty than out-group confederates and public responding seems to increase cohesiveness with in-group -but decrease it with out-group -sources of influence. In our third experiment we use the group polarization paradigm (e.g. Bumstein & Vinokur, 1973) to demonstrate that, when categorical differences between two subgroups within a discussion group are made salient, convergence of opinion between the subgroups is inhibited. Taken together the experiments show that self-categorization can be a crucial determining factor in social influence.

Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets

“…Research has repeatedly demonstrated that social identity concerns and beliefs (which refer to individuals' definition of the self in terms of group-defining attributes) play a vital role in shaping how recipients respond to information about the message source when processing messages (Abrams et al 1990, David and Turner 1996, Mackie et al 1990, Wood 2000. Social identity theory is thus an ideal bridge between the two literatures we integrate: the literature concerning individual motivations driving online contribution (which emphasizes identity motives) and the literature associating the content of these contributions with community-level outcomes (i.e., peer recognition and product sales).…”

“Ten Million Readers Can’t Be Wrong!,” or Can They? On the Role of Information About Adoption Stock in New Product Trial

“…Employing a variety of related theories such as social proof, social comparison, conformity and social norms, herding behavior, and information cascades, researchers have demonstrated that people are greatly influenced by the behaviors of others (Asch 1951, Banerjee 1992. Notably, social influence is most effective when uncertainty is high (Wooten and Reed 1998) and when following the lead of others that are perceived to be close, similar, or aspirational (Cialdini 2001, p. 140;Festinger 1954;Abrams et al 1990;Burn 1991). Thus, we will focus on customer uncertainty and homophily as critical factors in the influence process.…”

Religion and Redistributive Voting in Western Europe

“…This effect of religious identity operates even when an individual does not attend church regularly, since (i) other mechanisms such as personal networks and parental socialization provide enough information about beliefs and preferences among religious individuals, and (ii) the self-identification mechanism works even in absence of social control (Abrams et al 1990).…”