We discuss about our personal feelings to our friends through a mobile phone

Regarding the relationship towards the source of social influence, several aspects that might affect conformity (depending on the assumed underlying mechanisms) were mentioned briefly when

discussing the goals for conformity earlier. For example, with regard to the need for accuracy, the credibility of the influencing agent was mentioned (chapter 3.3.2.1), while in the context of affiliation goals, means control of the agent was assumed to be relevant, such as the target’s affection and attractiveness (chapter 3.3.2.2). When discussing the goal of positive self-evaluation, the relationship towards the source was considered to be particularly crucial, as social influence is assumed to be dependent on this relationship being relevant to the target’s self-concept and of emotional significance (e.g. a friend or an in-group, chapter 3.3.2.3). Furthermore, the need for cognitive consistency was concerned with the general attitude towards the influencing agent in terms of valence and strength (chapter 3.3.2.4). In the following sections, several of these aspects will be outlined and empirical results will be discussed accordingly. First, results on how a positive orientation (attitude/attraction) towards the influencing agents will be presented. Furthermore, the aspect of similarity will be discussed against the background of the goal of accuracy. Although it has not been discussed against the background of different motives, tie strength has been found to be of importance for social influence processes for different reasons (e.g. Brown, Borderick & Lee, 2007, see also chapter 3.2.1) and thus will also be considered here.

3.3.3.2.1 Positive Orientation. Positive orientation towards a person or a group has been found to affect conformity processes in various contexts. For example, Kiesler and Kiesler (1970) report the results of a study in which they found the attractiveness of a group was related to social influence (in terms of private acceptance). Dittes and Kelley (1956) also found conformity was stronger when the group eliciting influence was valued by the individual. In addition, Lott and Lott (1961) as well as Festinger et al. (1952) also found a positive relationship between group attraction and conformity towards the group norm. In contrast to this, if a group is disliked, social influence has been found to decrease (Prislin & Wood, 2005).

The aforementioned results are in line with predictions based on the social identity framework that was already introduced in chapter 3.3.2.4). Social identification with a group based on the social identity framework comprises two components: self-stereotyping as part of a group and ingroup attraction (e.g. Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Leach et al., 2008), which in turn are assumed to increase conformity towards that in-group.

The effects of positive orientation (in terms of attitude and attraction, see e.g. Kiesler & Kiesler, 1970) towards a person or a group on social influence can be explained against the background of several different goals for yielding to social influence. With regard to the goal of accuracy (chapter 3.3.2.1), attraction is often named as a central aspect when it comes to private acceptance (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1970). The idea is that if the target feels a positive orientation towards the source, social reality testing

is more likely to occur and the more the social influence is internalized (Festinger, 1953 in Insko et al., 1983). In the context of the social identity theory (chapter 3.3.2.3) it has already been outlined that the influence of a group can partly be regarded as being based on the goal of accuracy because the more one self-categorizes with a valued social group, the more the group consensus is regarded as a valid indicator of reality (Prislin & Wood, 2005). However, according to Turner (1991) there are also studies which suggest that group cohesiveness is not always relevant for informational social influence and that sometimes it does not matter whether a stranger or a friend serves as the frame of reference. It can further be assumed that positive orientation towards a person or a group increases means control of that agent in terms of him/her/them being able to punish and reward the target (e.g.

through rejection) when the goal of affiliation is pursued (chapter 3.3.2.2). With regard to the goal of positive self-evaluation it has already been mentioned that the value and personal relevance of the self-defining relationship towards the influencing agent is of central importance for social influence (chapter 3.3.2.3). The effects of attraction and positive attitude towards the source on social influence processes can also be explained from the perspective of the goal of consistency (chapter 3.3.2.4).

Here, a previous positive attitude is assumed to change the target’s attitude towards the object of evaluation in accordance with that attitude, while a negative attitude is assumed to trigger opposing effects.

3.3.3.2.2 Similarity. In the context of social identity theory and the goal of positive self-evaluation (chapter 3.3.2.3) it was discussed that increased perceived similarity within a group leads people to show more conformity (particularly when idiosyncratic differences are hidden such as in anonymous CMC). This phenomenon has also been observed in face-to-face situations and interpersonal contexts (Turner, 1991). In 1968, Hornstein, Fisch and Holmes found that people were more likely to follow the request to return a wallet they found on the street if the owner was like them (a fellow American) as opposed to when the owner was not perceived as being similar (a foreigner). In group contexts, Gerard (1954) observed more social influence when group members shared the same characteristics. Furthermore, Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, and Turner (1990) found that participants conformed more to those confederates who were categorized as students from the same program (as opposed to a different program).

From the perspective of the goal of accuracy (chapter 3.3.2.1), the effects of similarity can be explained against the background of referent informational influence (Turner, 1991). As outlined earlier (chapter 3.3.2.1), perceived similarity within a group leads to depersonalization and adaption towards the in-group stereotype because the peer group members serve as a frame of reference for what can be regarded as valid and accurate (what Festinger called social reality testing, according to

Turner, 1991). People are more likely to compare their attitude and behaviors with that of their peers (Festinger, 1954). Accordingly, when it comes to judgment tasks, similar others may serve as a frame of reference because of the perceived similarity (Turner, 1991). Furthermore, when talking about group processes, similarity between group members is associated with self-categorization to a group which in turn is associated with the goal of positive self-evaluation (chapter 3.3.2.3). Hence, effects of similarity might be ascribed to that goal as well.

3.3.3.2.3 Tie Strength. Tie strength is a multidimensional construct that can be described by indicators and predictors (Marsden & Campbell, 1984). Indicators, namely components of tie strength, are for example closeness, intimacy and interpersonal support in personal relationships (Frenzen

& Davis, 1990). One of the most important predictors is the frequency of interpersonal interaction (Marsden & Campbell, 1984), hence tie strength is associated with the amount of information that is exchanged (Brown & Reingen, 1987).

Tie strength has been found to affect social influence in various studies. However, results are not consistent. Results by Brown and Reingen (1987) on word-of-mouth mechanisms indicate that strong ties (e.g. friends in contrast to acquaintances) were perceived as being influential in consumer decision-making processes. Bond and colleagues (2012, see chapter 3.2.1) also observed that participants were more likely to engage in political self-expression (clicking a button that said I voted, which was then displayed on the participants’ profile page) when they observed this behavior among their strong ties (in contrast to weak ties, who were less influential). In contrast to this, Steffes and Burgee (2009) observed that unknown Internet users were more influential than real life friends when evaluating the quality of a college professor’s lecture.

Those conflicting findings could possibly be attributed to different definitions and conceptualizations of tie strength. For example, Steffes and Burgee (2009) compared unknown online users with face-to-face contacts, while according to the definition provided above the latter can also comprise different varieties of tie strength, as taken into account by Brown and Reingen (1987). Furthermore, studies within computer-mediated environments often measure tie strength through frequency of interaction online (a predictor, e.g. Bond et al., 2012), although Marsden and Campbell (1984) suggest that indicators (such as closeness) are more reliable than predictors to describe the concept. Apart from definitional issues, conflicting results regarding the effects of tie strength might also reflect varying processes of conformity, when goals for yielding to social influence are taken into account. In Steffes and Burgee’s (2009) study, the process of evaluating the quality of the lecture could have been perceived as being of a more informational nature, rendering the goal of accuracy salient. In this case, a larger number of people might have been more indicative of a right choice than a few close people.

In general, tie strength can be conceptualized as a prerequisite as well as an influence factor for social influence. In terms of being described by predictors such as frequency of interaction, the effect of tie strength might be independent from the respective goal, because the more interaction takes place, the more likely the exchange of information and thus social influence. This is true for any kind of information, be it information on the accuracy of a behavior, information on means control of the agent, or information about the relationship towards the agent. Nevertheless, weak ties also play an important role with regard to information diffusion within social networks (e.g. Weimann, 1983).