Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

SOCIAL INFLUENCE AS A FUNCTION OF ATTEMPTED AND IMPLIED USURPATION OF CHOICE.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE AS A FUNCTION OF ATTEMPTED AND IMPLIED USURPATION OF CHOICE. THE PRESENT EXPERIMENT WAS DESIGNED TO TEST 2 PROPOSITIONS: (1) WHEN A PERSON FEELS FREE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN 2 ALTERNATIVES, HE WILL EXPERIENCE "PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE" IF SOMEONE ATTEMPTS TO TELL HIM WHAT TO CHOOSE, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, HE WILL TEND TO RESIST THE ATTEMPTED INFLUENCE; AND (2) THE AMOUNT OF REACTANCE AND CONSEQUENT TENDENCY TO RESIST THE ATTEMPTED INFLUENCE WILL BE A DIRECT FUNCTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE ATTEMPTS BY ANOTHER TO INTERFERE WITH ONE'S OWN CHOICE. SS WHO HAD A 2-ALTERNATIVE CHOICE TO MAKE WERE GIVEN A MESSAGE WHICH WAS AN ATTEMPT BY ANOTHER (FICTITIOUS) PERSON TO TELL THEM WHICH ALTERNATIVE TO SELECT. A 2ND EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION LED SS TO EXPECT THEY WOULD RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM THE OTHER PERSON FOR EACH OF SEVERAL CHOICES THEY WERE TO MAKE, THUS ALLOWING SS TO INFER FUTURE ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR CHOICES. A CONTROL CONDITION SIMPLY EXPOSED SS TO A STATEMENT OF PREFERENCE ON THE PART OF THE OTHER PERSON. COMPARED TO THE CONTROL CONDITION, IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT SS WERE POSITIVELY INFLUENCED BY THE OTHER PERSON'S PREFERENCE, SS IN BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS TENDED TO REJECT THE OTHER'S INFLUENCE ATTEMPT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT FROM THE EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING MESSAGES FROM THE OTHER IN REGARD TO FUTURE CHOICES. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Personality and Social Psychology American Psychological Association

SOCIAL INFLUENCE AS A FUNCTION OF ATTEMPTED AND IMPLIED USURPATION OF CHOICE.

Download PDF
5 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/social-influence-as-a-function-of-attempted-and-implied-usurpation-of-YpCSvJoRaW

References (1)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1966 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0022-3514
eISSN
1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/h0023992
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

THE PRESENT EXPERIMENT WAS DESIGNED TO TEST 2 PROPOSITIONS: (1) WHEN A PERSON FEELS FREE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN 2 ALTERNATIVES, HE WILL EXPERIENCE "PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE" IF SOMEONE ATTEMPTS TO TELL HIM WHAT TO CHOOSE, AND, CONSEQUENTLY, HE WILL TEND TO RESIST THE ATTEMPTED INFLUENCE; AND (2) THE AMOUNT OF REACTANCE AND CONSEQUENT TENDENCY TO RESIST THE ATTEMPTED INFLUENCE WILL BE A DIRECT FUNCTION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE ATTEMPTS BY ANOTHER TO INTERFERE WITH ONE'S OWN CHOICE. SS WHO HAD A 2-ALTERNATIVE CHOICE TO MAKE WERE GIVEN A MESSAGE WHICH WAS AN ATTEMPT BY ANOTHER (FICTITIOUS) PERSON TO TELL THEM WHICH ALTERNATIVE TO SELECT. A 2ND EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION LED SS TO EXPECT THEY WOULD RECEIVE A MESSAGE FROM THE OTHER PERSON FOR EACH OF SEVERAL CHOICES THEY WERE TO MAKE, THUS ALLOWING SS TO INFER FUTURE ATTEMPTS TO INTERFERE WITH THEIR CHOICES. A CONTROL CONDITION SIMPLY EXPOSED SS TO A STATEMENT OF PREFERENCE ON THE PART OF THE OTHER PERSON. COMPARED TO THE CONTROL CONDITION, IN WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT SS WERE POSITIVELY INFLUENCED BY THE OTHER PERSON'S PREFERENCE, SS IN BOTH EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS TENDED TO REJECT THE OTHER'S INFLUENCE ATTEMPT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT FROM THE EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING MESSAGES FROM THE OTHER IN REGARD TO FUTURE CHOICES.

Journal

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology – American Psychological Association

Published: Dec 1, 1966

There are no references for this article.