Social influence and the diamond model of social response: Toward an extended theory of informational influence

Abstract

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...

Self‐efficacy and independence from social influence: Discovery of an efficacy–difficulty effect

“…Namely, individuals who perceive themselves as competent within a behavioural domain will be harder to influence on tasks related to that domain than individuals who perceive themselves as less competent (cf. Nail & Ruch, 1992). This difference is especially pronounced when the influence task comprises a high level of difficulty.…”

Proposal of a Double Diamond Model of Social Response

“…Willis and J. M. Levine's (1976) diamond model presented in terms of operational definitions. The data are from Nail and Ruch (1992, Experiment 1, “Social Influence and the Diamond Model of Social Response: Toward an Extended Theory of Informational Influence” by P. R. Nail and G. L. Ruch, 1992, British Journal of Social Psychology, 31 , p. 175.…”

“…Aided by Willis and Levine's (1976) change of labeling from variability to self-anticonformity, Nail and colleagues have identified numerous situations where self-anticonformity can and does occur (Nail, 1986; Nail & Ruch, 1992; Nail & Thompson, 1990; Nail & Van Leeuwen, 1993). As in our opening example with Shawn's physics teacher, one is when an influencer is attempting to persuade an oppositional or recalcitrant influencee to change her or his behavior.…”

“…What is more, 50% reported that they had, on occasion, actually reversed their initial inclinations on true–false tests based on thoughts reflecting self-anticonformity! In laboratory work, Nail and colleagues (Nail & Ruch, 1992; Nail & Thompson, 1990) found that participants spontaneously and quickly adopted a strategy reflecting self-anticonformity on true–false questions once learning that their intuitions were consistently wrong. Such questions are known colloquially as trick questions .…”

“…Nail and Ruch (1992, Experiment 1) randomly assigned participants to one of four experimental conditions paralleling the four pure responses of the Willis and Levine (1976) diamond model (Figure 6). A computer presented each participant and an alleged partner with a series of 20 true–false trivia questions; the “partner,” in all conditions was actually a confederate of the experimenter.…”