Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T04:20:58.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lost in Translation: From Influence to Persuasion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Jorge Correia Jesuino
Jorge Correia Jesuino*
Affiliation:
ISCTE, Lisbon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social influence and persuasion are not synonyms. This paper traces back the different approaches and distinctions constituting the two concepts and argues that the two research traditions focused respectively on social influence in group processes and on individual attitude change through persuasive communication, could be re-examined from a different vantage point, casting a new light on the continuities between them.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 107 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. (2002) Introduction to Sociology. Lectures given in 1968. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Allport, F. (1924) Social Psychology. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Asch, S. (1956) ‘Studies of Independence and Conformity: Minority of One against a Unanimous Majority’, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70: 1–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. (2006) ‘What Have We Been Priming All These Years? On the Development, Mechanisms and Ecology of Non conscious Social Behaviour’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 36: 147–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudon, R. (1997) L'art de se persuader. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Boudon, R. (2003) Bonnes Raisons. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Burnstein, E. and Vinokur, A. (1975) ‘What a Person Thinks upon Learning He Has Chosen Differently from Others: Nice Evidence for the Persuasive Arguments Explanation of Choice Shifts ’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11: 412–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnstein, E. and Vinokur, A. (1977) ‘Persuasive Argumentation and Social Comparison as Determinants of Attitude Polarization’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13: 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1980) ‘Heuristic versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source versus Message Cues in Persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 752–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1987) ‘The Heuristic Model of Persuasion’, in Zanna, M., Olson, J. and Herman, C. (eds), Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5, pp. 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y., eds (1999) Dual-processes Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R., Vincent, J., Lewis, S., Catalan, J., Wheeler, D. and Darby, B. (1975) ‘Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-the-Face Technique’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31: 206–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crano, W. and Álvaro, E. (1998) ‘The Context/Comparison Model of Social Influence: Mechanisms, Structure and Linkage That Underlie Indirect Attitude Change’, in Stroebe, W. and Hewstone, M. (eds), European Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 8, pp.175–202. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. (1955) ‘A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influence upon Individual Judgment’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51: 629–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faucheux, C. and Moscovici, S. (1967) ‘Le style de comportement d'une minorité et son influence sur les réponses d'une majorité’, Bulletin du CERP, 16: 337–60.Google Scholar
Freedman, J. and Fraser, S. (1966) ‘Compliance without Pressure: The Foot-in-the-Door Technique’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4: 195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghiglione, R. (1986) L'homme communiquant. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Gigone, D. and Hastie, R. (1996) ‘The Impact of Information on Group Judgment: A Model and Computer Simulation’, in Witte, E. and Davis, J. (eds), Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups, Vol. 1, pp. 221–51. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. (1976) Sémiotique et Sciences Sociales. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Grize, J. -B. (2004) ‘Le point de vue de la logique naturelle: Démontrer, prouver, argumenter’, in Doury, M. et Moirand, S. (eds), L'argumentation aujourd'hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Hovland, C., Janis, I. and Kelley, H. (1953) Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. (1958) ‘Compliance, Identification and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2: 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. (2001) Swarm Intelligence. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. and Thompson, E. (1999) ‘Persuasion by a Single Route: A View from the Unimodel ’, Psychological Inquiry, 10(2): 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latané, B. (1996) ‘The Fate of Opinion Minorities in Groups’, in Witte, E. and Davis, J. (eds), Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups, Vol. 1, pp. 193–219. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Latané, B. and L'Herron, T. (1996) ‘Social Clustering in the Conformity Game: Dynamic Social Impact in Electronic Groups ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70: 1218–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latané, B. and Wolf, S. (1981) ‘The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities’, Psychological Review, 88: 438–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurens, S. and Moscovici, S. (2005) ‘The Confederate's and Others' Self-Conversion: A Neglected Phenomenon’, Journal of Social Psychology, 145(2): 191–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leibniz, G.W. (1765) Nouveaux Essais sur l'entendement humain, Livre iv, ch. xvi, para 6.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Marková, I. (2003) Dialogicality and Social Representations: The Dynamics of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, R. (1998) ‘Majority and Minority Influence Using the Afterimage Paradigm: A Series of Attempted Replications ’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montmollin, G. (1984) ‘Le changement d’attitude’, in Moscovici, S. (ed.), Psychologie sociale. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1972) ‘Society and Theory in Social Psychology’, in Israel, J. and Tajfel, H. (eds), The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment, pp. 17–68. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1976) Psychologie des minorités actives. Paris: PUF. (First edition in English, Social Influence and Social Change, 1979.)Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1980) ‘Toward a Theory of Conversion Behaviour’, in Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13, pp. 209–39. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1984) ‘Introduction. Le domaine de la psychologie sociale’, in Moscovici, S. (ed.), Psychologie Sociale, pp. 5–22. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1992) ‘The Discovery of Group Polarization’, in Granberg, D. and Sarup, G. (eds), Social Judgments and Intergroup Relations: Essays in Honour of Musafer Sherif, pp. 107–27. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1993) ‘The Return of the Unconscious’, Social Research, 60: 39–63.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Doise, W. (1992) Dissensions and Consensus. Paris: PUF.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. and Zavalloni, M. (1969) ‘The Group as Polarizer of Attitudes ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12: 125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S., Lage, E. and Naffrechoux, X. (1969) ‘Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Response of a Majority in Colour Perception Task’, Sociometry, 32: 365–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, D. (2004) Exploring Social Psychology, 3rd edn. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1963a) ‘On the Concept of Political Power ’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107(3) June.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (1963b) ‘On the Concept of Influence ’, Public Opinion Quarterly, spring.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, J. et Mugny, G. (1993) Influences sociales: La théorie de l'élaboration du conflit. Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1981) Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.Google Scholar
Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1986) ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion ’, in Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19, pp. 123–205. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1936) The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. (1967) ‘Attitude as the Individual's Own Categories: The Social-Judgment— Involvement Approach to Attitude and Attitude Change’, in Sherif, C. and Sherif, M. (eds), Attitudes: Ego Involvement and Change, pp. 105–39. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1999) Sociologie: étude sur les formes de la socialisation (1908), French transl. by Deroche-Gurcel, L. and Muller, S.. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Stoner, J. (1961) A comparison of individual and group decision involving risk. Unpublished masters thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
Tomasi di Lampedusa, G. (1991) The Leopard, transl. A. Colquhoun. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Vinokur, A. Trope, Y. and Burnstein, E. (1975) ‘A Decision Making Analysis of Persuasive Argumentation and the Choice Shift Effect ’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(2): 127–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallach, M., Kogan, N. and Bem, D. (1962) ‘Group Influence on Individual Risk Taking’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65: 75–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, B. (2002) Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar