Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • ProcessesofOpinion PDF

    Uploaded by

    Gisela Consolmagno
    10 views22 pages

    Original Title

    ProcessesofOpinion.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    10 views22 pages

    ProcessesofOpinion PDF

    Uploaded by

    Gisela Consolmagno

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 22
    : Loot SECs Tt iia Vee REPRINT SERIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE* BY HERBERT ©. KELMAN Autiwudy and opinion data provide a basis for inferring the meaning of opinions held by individuals and groups and also for predictions about their fucare behavior. Such iuferences and predicuions, if they are to be mace effec: UUvely, require a theoretial foundation which explains the processes by which people adopt and express particular opinions, Here i a theory of three Brocencs by which persons respond to social infuence, Herbert G, Kelman is Lactuser on Social Prychology at Hasvard University Currently, le ic spending the year at che Insitute for Soclal Research in Osio and devoting part of his time to a further study of the ellecis af a year’s sojourn in die United States on the seifimages of Scandinavian students. His heoretical and experimental work during the past eight years on the problems ‘reported in this sztiele will be published in a forthcotaing book, an extly craft of which was awarded the Sacio-Psychological Prize of the American Associa- tion for the Advancement of Seience in 1554 PERSISTENT concern in sie analysis of public opinion data is the “meaning” that one can ascribe to the observed distribu- tions and trends—and to the positions taken by particular individuals and segments of the population, Clearly, to un- Gerstand what opinion data mean we have to know considerably more tan the direction of an individual's responses ot the distribution of responses in the population, We need information that will allow us to make soane inferences about the characteristics of the observed opi ions—aheir intensity, their salience, the level of commitment that they imply. We need information aboot the motivational bases of these opinions—about the functions that they fulfill for the individual and the mottvational systems in which they are embedded! We need in formation about the cognitive Hinks of the opinions--the amount and the nature oF information that supports them, dhe specific expectations and evaluations that surround thera “The need ior more detailed information becomes even more apparent when we attempt to use opinion data for the prediction of subsequent behavior. What is the likelihood that the opinions obscrved in a par- ticular survey will be translated into some forra of concrete action? ‘This paper is based! om a cecearet program on socal infuence and behavior hangs, apported 9 grant M2336 from the National Tasitote of Mental Heald, “roe dicussons af exe eifeiens eoutadoral bets of opinfon see 1, Sarioff and D, Kou, “The Motivations) B:see af itiude Change” Pour? of Abmirna? and Social Poelosy, Vols 43. 1956 Pps 285-194) 80 MCB. Smith, f. & Bruner, and LW. White, Opiviane and Pevronatng, New Nore, Wiley. 1956 Reprinted from PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, Vai, 25, Spring, 1961 Copyeigh 1961, Fingetom Usiveraty © Bg 1 reared se PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY What is the nature of the actions that people whe hold « particular opinion are likely to cs, and how are they likely to reset to various events? How fikely are these opinions to persist over time and t9 generalize to related issues? What are the conditions under which one might expect these opinions to be abandoned and changed? Such pre- dictions can be made only to the extent to which we are informed about the cnicial dimensions of the opinions in question, about the moti tions that vnderlie thew, and about the cognitive contexts in. which they are held. INDRRRING THE MEANING OF OFINIONS In a certain sense, the nect for more detailed information shout opinions can (and must) be met by improvements and refinements in Ge methodology of opinion assessment. A great deal of progress jn this direction fas already been made ia recent years. ‘Thus, many widely accepted features of interviewing technique are specifically designed to clice inforrsatéon on which vatic inferences about che meaning of opinions can be based: the creation ofa relaxes, nonjixigmental atmos phere; the emphasis on opemenced questions; the progressive funneling from general to specific questions: che use of probes, of indirect ques: tions, and of interlocking questions; and so on. ‘These procedures facilitate inferences (8) by maximizing the likelihood that the respond: ent will give rich and fail information and thus reveal the motivational and cognitive structure underlying the expressed opinions, and. (2) by minimising the likelihood that the respondent will consciously oF uanconsciousiy distort his “private” opinions when expressing thoze to the interviewer. Similarly, when attitudes are assessed by means of questionnaires, it is possible to approximate these methodological goals. {a part, this is accomplished by the instructions, which can motivate the subject to respond fully and Aonestly and assure him of confidentialness oF ano- nymity: In partie is accomplished by the use of indirect and projective questions, and by the inclusion of a series of imterrelated items im the questionsaire. And, ie part, it is possible to make inferences about the meaning of opinions by the wee of various scaling deviees im the analysis of the data There is no question about the importaae of thee methodological advances, but in and of themselves they do not solve the problem of inference. They increase the favestigator's ability to obtain rich and atively undistorted informacion on which he eam then base vslid inferences, Dut, no matter how relned the techniques, they do not provide direct informorion about the meaning of the opinions and eo PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE 30 not permit automatic predictions to subsequent behavior: the gator still has co make inferences from dhe data. ‘To make such inferences, the student of public opinion needs a theoretical framework which accounts for the adoption and expression of particular opinions on the part of individuals and groups. Such a framework can serve as a guide in the collection of data: it can provide 4 systematic basis for deciding what information is refevant and what {questions should be asked in order to permit the drawing of inferences, Similarly, it can serve as a guide for interpreting the data artd deriving implications from them, ‘The need for such a framework is particularly apparent when one attempts to make predictions about subsequent behavior on the basis of opinion daca. For example, in a relaxed interview situation a particu. Jar respondent may express himself favorably toward socialized: med. cine, What are the chances that he will rake the same position in a variety of other situations? To answer this, we would need a theoretical scheme for the analysis of interaction situations, in terms of which we could make some inferences about the strtcture and meaning of this particular interview situation as compared to various other situations in which the issue of socialized medicine might arise. How would we expect this sazne respondent to react to a concerted cantpaign by the Medical Asiociation which links Federal insurance programs with creeping socialism? To answer this, we would need a theory of opinion formation and change, in terms of which we could make some infer- ences about the characteristics af opinions formed under different conditions Progress in the analysis of public opinion, then, requtires theoretical development along with methodological improvements. For this de velopment, it shouicl be possible to draw on some of the current theo- retical thinking and associated research in social psychology. There are two foci of social-psychological theorizing and research that wouie appear to be particularly germane to the analysis of puble opinion. ‘One is the study of processes of social interaction as such, Such diverse approaches to the analysis of social interaeion as those of Getzels? Goffman. and Jones and Thibaus,' for example. can be useful for con vsti 2]. W, Geusls, “The Question Annwcer Proesss. A Coneepesalimtion and Soe Derived Hypomneses for Rmpitial Examination.” Puble Opinion Quarterly, Val. 18, 1954, PP. S09) 35ee, OF eample, E Goffman, in Sociol Interaction," Poin, Vol. 18, 195% PP Imscracton." Human Reletiors, Vol. x0, 1967 FEE, ones and J. W. Tuibout, “reaction Goals as Bases of uference in Anterperonsl Percepsion,” ta curls, ellirs Pete Boren on and 7 Stanford University Gres, 1958 Dp. 51173, On Facenoskt An Analysis of Rituat Elements wy and “Alienation fom 60 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY ceptualizing the determinants of opinion expression. Thus, by using one or another of these schemes, the investigator can make some formulations about the expectations that the respondent brought to the interview situation and the goals that he was trying to achieve in this interaction, On the basis of such a formulation, he can make infer cences about the meaning of the opinions expressed in this situation and about their implications for subsequent behavior—for example, about the likelihood that similar opinions will be expressed in a variety of other situations. ‘The second relevant focus of social-psychological theorizing and research is the study of processes of social infiuence and the induction of behavior change, Theoretical analyses in this area can be useful for conceptualizing the determinants of opinion formation and opinion change. They can help the investigator in making formulations about the sourees of the opinions expressed by the respondent—the social conditions under which they were adopted, the motivations that under: lie them, and the social and personal systems in which they are em bedded. On the basis of such a formulation, again, he-can make infer- ences about the meaning and implications of the opinions ascertained. ‘The modei that 1 shall present here emerged out of the second re- search focus—the study of social influence and behavior change, It fs, essentially, an attempt to conceptualize the processes of opinion formation and opinion change. It starts with the assumption that opinions adopted under different conditions of social influence, and based on different motivations, will differ in terms of their qualitative characteristics and their subsequent histories, Thus, if we know some- thing about the determinants and motivational bases of particular opinions, we should be able to make predictions about the conditions under which they are likely to be expressed, the conditions under which they are Tkely to change, and other behavioral consequences to which they are likely to lead. Ideally, such a model can be useful in the analysis of public opinion by suggesting relevant variables in terms of which opinion data can be examined and predictions can be formulated, THE STUDY OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE Social influence has becn a central area of concern for experimental social psychology altiost since its beginnings. Three general rescarch traditions in this area can be distinguished: (1) the study of social Influences on judginents, stemming trom the eaclier work on prestige suggestion:® (@) the study of social influences arising fara smail group 4 See, Gor example, 5. E. Asch, Sceial Peysholagy, New York, Prentice PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE a interactign:+ and (g) the study of social influences arising from per- suasive communications.’ In recent yeats, there has been a considerable ‘convergence between these three traditions, going hand in hand with an increased inverest in developing general principles of social influence and socially induced behavior change. One result of these developments has been that many investigators found it necessary to make qualitative distinctions between different types of influence. In some cases, these distinctions arose primarily out of the observation that social influence may have qualitatively different effects, that it may produce different kincls of change. For example, under some conditions it may result in mere public conformity—in superficial changes on a verbal or overt level without accompanying changes in belief; in other situations it may result in private accept ance—in a change that is tuore general, more durable, more integrated with the person's own values“ Other iavestigators found ie mecessary to make distinctions hecause they observed that influence may occur for different reasons, that it may arise out of different motivations and orientations. For example, under some conditions in@wence may be primarily informational—the subject may conform to the influencing person or group because he views him as a source of valid information; in other situations influence may be primarily normtarive—the subject may conform in order to meet the positive expectations of the influ- encing person or group? My own work can be viewed in the general context that I have out fined here, T starved out with the distinction between public con- formity and private acceptance, and tried to establish some of the dis tinct determinants of each. 1 became dissatisfied with this dichotomy as 1 began to look at important exactples af social influence that could 6 Sec, lor example, D. Cartnright and, Zander, editors, Group Dynamics, Esane ton til Row Foteon, oe. "eer for ckample, 1 Hovland 1 L. Janis, and Hi, H. Kelley, Commanestion ‘Pereasion Seow tkavety Fae Uniseoty Pr, 159 See for exampi, Ls Fatinge “Am Antics of Contant Behavon” fn Mf Seri ant M0 Wat ‘eiwrs, Croup fans athe Chonacs, Now Yorks Harper tons. Sgexg8" M,C Kelman, “A cunite Change as Fonction of Response ‘he siding” Rowen fsations, Vol 6, 1:3, BE. weeais; J. Ps French, Ir, and ik Raven "The Bans of Soca) Power” th Be Carvwighs, ctor, Studies ft Sort Power, Ann. Athor, Miche Insets for Soda) Revie, Yusy pogo 67" ad Doane Jahoda, “Conforaity and Indcpendenee™ Iumen’ Relation Vol. 121958 PF foe example, Mf Danteh and HB, Geratd. “A Siy of Nommtive and Informational Sadat Iniuence upon tadiieval Jagr” Journ) a) Abnorm ana sovel Prchoboey, Vo, S05 pp Gpeghe JW. Thibat aed Lr Seehand, SRepenslogial Ser and Socal Confort” Joural of Person, Vol. 35, 25 a 3h Jaton and He B Sats, “Pe Steet ok Penn Groop os o8 Gontoctiy Prone” Jouratt of Abnormal aed Socal Pcheligy, Sah sp 0958 BR are 6 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY not be encompassed by it, L was especially impressed with the accounts of ideological conversion of the “true believer” variety, and with the recent accounts of “brainwashing,” particularly the Chinese Communist methods of “thought reform." It is apparent that these experiences do not simply invoive public conformity, but that indeed they produce a change in underlying beliefs. But it is equally apparent that they do not produce what we would usually consider private acceptance— changes that are in some sense integrated with the person’s own value system and that have become independent of the external source, Rather. they seem co produce new beliefs that are isolated {rom the rest of the person's values and that are highly dependent on external support, “These considerations eventuaily led me to distinguish three processes of sociat infiuence, each characterized by a distinct set of antecedent and a distinet set of consequent conditions. I have called these processes compliance, identification, and internalization. THREE PROCESSES OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE Gomepliance can be said to occur when an individual accepts influence from another person or from a group because he hopes to achieve a favorable reaction from the other, He may be interested in attaining certain specific rewards or in avoiding certain specific punishments that the influencing agent controls. For example, an individual aay make a special effort to express only “correct” opinions in order to gain admission into a particular group or social set, or in order to avoid being fired from his government job. Or, the individual may be con- cerned with gaining approval or avoiding disapproval from the influ- encing agent in a more general way. For example, some individuals may compulsively iry to say the expected thing in all situations and please everyone with whom they come in contact, out of a dispro- portionate need for favorable responses rom others of a direct and immediate kind. In any event, when the individual complies, he does what the agent wants him w do—or what he chinks the agertt wants hhim to do—beeause he sees this as a way of achieving a desired response from him, He does not adopt the induced behavior—for example, & particular opinion response—because he believes in its content, but because itis instrumental ia the production of a satisfying social elfect. What the individual learns, essentially, is to say or do the expected thing in special situations, regardless of what his private beliefs may For instance, R. J. Lifton, “ "Thought Reform’ of Western Civilians ia Chinese Commatnist Prisons” Paychiatny, Valid 955 Pps 178-1 TWA detaited des=intion of these provssie and the exdeximental, work boved on theam will be contained in a forchcamiog book, Sonal Invluonce and Personal Geli A Theoresiod and Experiments! pproccn 19'the Sindy af Behavior Chonge, 19 Se published by Joba Wiley & Song PROCESSES OF OPINION ClANGR 6s ugh com 1d be expressed only ‘when the petson’s behavior is observable by the induencing agent Tdentifcation can be said to occur when an individual adopts be havior derived from another person or a group because this behavior is associated with a satistying seit defining relationship to this person or group. By a self-defining relationship I mean a role relationship that forms a part of the person's self-image. Accepting influence through identification, then, is a way of establishing or maintaining the desited relationship to the other, and the self-definition that is anchored in this eelationship. The relationship that an individual wsies to establish or maintain through identification may take different forms. It may take the form of classical identification, that is, of a relationship in which the indi Vidual takes over all or part of the role of the influencing agent. To the extent to which such a relationship exists, the individual defines ‘his own role in terms of the roie of the other. He attempts to be like ‘or actually to be the other person. By saying what the other says, doing what he does, believing what he believes, the individual maintains this relationship and-the satisfying self ‘re Tras Paocuses ~ Compliance ——‘Wdentifeation Antzeedents: 41. Basisfor the Concer with Concer with Cameera with importance of sccial eect ‘ceil anchorage value congraeace {he Induction’ of bobavion oh chlor SO Beaune 2 Souseaf power Meine contal Atractnetess Creibiity of tie tncing egene 3. Manner of “Limitation of _—_Detincatiom of ole Reorganization of schlesing pree choice behavior requirements esnawends potency of the framework Ieduced response Conssuent Conditions of Surveillance hy Sallence of rela Relevance of values feiformance of inBuceeing ‘Bonship +9 ‘o fenue EEduced response agent agent 2. Conditions of Changed percep- Changed pescsp- Changed perception chaigs wad tiou of conde tot of sonditons of eontions for seanion ef bons for social for satfving value ‘maximinay Induced response rewaeds selbdebning on relationships S.Type of behavior Exteraal demands Expectations Persons valve spite io which ofa specie eBaing = ‘tem nluced response. Setting Speedie sche is eusbedded in cermns of the basis for the importance of the induction, the source of the influencing agent's power, and the manner of achieving prepotency of the induced response. 1. The processes can be distinguished in terms of the basis for the importance of the induction, that is, in terms of the nature of che motivational system that i activated in the influence situation, What is it about the influcnce situation that makes it important, that makes it relevant to the individual's goals? What are dhe primary concerns that the Indsvidual brings to the situation er that are aroused by it? “The differences between the three processes in this respect are implicit in the descriptions of the processes given above: (a) To the extent that the individua! is concermed—for whatever reason—with the social effect of his behavior, infiuence will tead to take the form of compliance. (b) To the extent that he is concerned with the social anchorage of his behavior, influence will tend to take the form of identification. (¢} To = concerned with the uilue congrtence of his be- the extent that 6a PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY havior (rational or otherwise), influence will tend to take the form of internalization. 2. A difference between the three processes in terms of the source of the influencing agent's power is hypothesized. (a) To the extent that the agent's power is based on his means control, influence will tend to take the form of compliance, An agent possesses means control if he is in a position to supply or withhold means needed by the individual for the achievement of his goals. ‘The perception of means control may depend on the agent's actual control over specific rewards and punishments or on his potential control, which would be related to his position im the social structure {his status, authority, or general prestige). (b) To the extent that the agent's power is based on his ‘attractiveness, inftuence will tend to take the form of identification, An agent is attractive if he occupies a role which the individual himself desires" or if he occupies a role reciprocal to one the individual wants to establish or maintain. The term “attractiveness,” as used here, does not refer to the possession of qualities that make a person likable, but rather to the possession of qualities on the part of the agent that make 2 continued relationship to him particularly desirable. la other words, ‘an agent is atcractive when the individual is able to derive satisfaction from a self-definition with reference to hion, (6) To the extent that the agent's power is based on his evedbility, influence will tend to take the form of internalization, An agent possesses eredibility if his state ments are considered trathful and vatid, and hence worthy of serious consideration. Hovland, Janis, and Keiley** distinguish two bases for credibility: expertness and wustworthiness. In other words, an agent may be perceived as possessing credibility because he is likely to Anow the truth, or because he is likely to tell the truth. Trustworthiness, in tum, may be related to over-all respect, likemindedness, and lack of vested interest. 3. It is proposed that the three processes differ in terms of the way in which prepotency is achieved, (a) To the extent that the induced response becomes prepotent—thar is, becomes a “distinguished path” relative to alternative response possibilities—because the indi- vidual's choice behavior is limited, influence will tend to take the form of compliance, This may happen if the individual is pressured into the induced response, or if alternative responses are blocked. The induced response thus becomes preporent because it is, exentially, the only response permitted: the individual sees himself as having no fs similar 10 John Whiting's conception of "Status Eney” as a basis for fon. Ses J. W. M. Whiting, “Sorcere, Sin, and. the Sapereoa." in M. B. obes eciton, Nebraska Sypoifem om Motfouton, incola, University of Nebraska PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE 6 choice and as being restricted to this particular alternative, (0) To the extent that the induced response becomes prepotent because the requirements of a particular role are delineated, infiuence will end to take the form of identification, This may happen if the situation js defines in warms of a passicular ral: velationship and the demands of that role are more ot less clearly specified; for instance, if this role is made especially salient and the expectations deriving from it dominate the field. Or it may happen if alternative roles are made inefiective because the situation is ambiguous and consensual validation is lacking. ‘The induced response thus Decomes prepotent because it is ane of the few alternatives available co the individual: his choice behavior may be unrestricted, bue his opportunity for selecting alternative responses is limited by tne fact that he is operating exclusively from the point of view of a particular role system, (c) Finally, to the extent that the induced respons: becomes prepotent because there has been a teorgani zation in the individual's conception of meansends relationships, influ- cence will tend ta take the form of internalization. This «nay happen if the implications of the induced response for ceriain important values— implications of which the individual had been unaware heretofore— ate brought out. or if dhe advantages of the induced response 25 x path to the individual’s goals, compared to the various alternatives that atc available, are made apparent. The induced response thus becomes prepotent because it has taken on a new meaning: as the relationships betiveen various means and ends become restructured, it emerges as the preferred course of action in terms of the person's own values, Depending, then, on the nature of chest three antecedents, the influ ence process will take the form of compliance, identifiration, or inter alization. Each of these corresponds to a characteristic pattern of internal responses—thoughts and feelings—in which the individval engages as he accepts influence, The resuiting changes wil, in turn, be different for the three processes, as indicated in the second half of the table, Here, again, iis assumed chat there are no systematic quantita tive differences between the processes, but rather qualitative variations it the subsequent histories of behavior adopted through each process 1. It is propoxed that the processes differ in terms of the subsequent conditions under which the induced response wilt be performed or ‘expressed. (a) When an individual adopts an induced response through compliance, he tends to perform it only under conditions of sueillance bby the infinencing agent. ‘These conditions are met if cho agent is physically present, or if he is likely to find out about the individual's actions, (b) When an individual adopts am induced response through identification, he tends to perform it only under conditions of salience of hi relstionship ca the agen. Thac is, che occurrence of the betasinr 0 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY will depend on the extent to which the person's relationship to the agent has been engaged in the situation. Somehow this relationship hhas to be brought into focus and the individual has to be acting within the particular role that is involved in the identification. This docs not necessarily mean, however, that he is consciously aware of the relation- ship; the role can be activated without such awareness. (¢) When an individual adopts an induced response through internalization, he tends to perform i< under conditions of relevance of the values that were initialy involved in dhe influence situation, The behavior will tend to occur whenever these values are activated by the issues under consideration in a given situation, quite regardless of surveillance or salience of the influencing agent. This does not mean, of course, that the behavior will occur every time it becomes relevant. It uiay be out- competed by other responses in certain situations, ‘The probability of occurrence with a given degree of issue relevance will depend on the strength of the internalized behavior. 2. It is hypothesized that responses adopted through the three processes will difer in terms of the conditions under which they witl subsequently be abandoned of changed. (a) A reponse adopted through compliance will be abandoned if it is no longer perceived as the best path toward the attainment of social rewards. (b) A response adopted through identification will be abandoned if it is no longer perceived as the test path toward the maintenance or establishinent of satisfying self defining relationships. (¢) A response adopted throwyh internalization will be abandoned if it is no longer perceived as the best path toward the maximization of the individual’s values. 3. Finally, it is hypothesized chat responses adopted trough the three processes will differ from each other along certain qualitative Gimensions. These can best be summarized, perhaps, by referring to the type of behavior ssstera in which the induced response is erabedded. (a) Behavior adopted through compliance is part of a system of external demands that characterize a specific setting, In other words, ic is part of the rules of conduct that an individual tearas in order to get along ina particular situation or series of situations, "The behavior tends t© be related to the person's values only in an izstrumental rather than nions, for example, remain at that level, an intrinsic way. As long as 0} the individual will tend to regard them as not really representative of his true beliefs. (} Behavior adopted through identification is part of a system of expectations defining a particular role—whether this is the role of the other which he is taking over, or a role reciprocal to the other's. This behavior wil] be regarded by the pervon as represent- cs Sng Mimself, and may in dact form an Heapoctant aspect of imnse will tend (0 be iolared, however, from the rest of the person's values PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE n to have little interplay with them. in extreme cases the system in which the induced response is embedded may be encapsulated! and function almost like 2 foreign body within the person, The induced responses here will be relatively inflexible and stereotyped. {c) Bev havior adopted through internalization is part of an internal systctn Its fisted into the person’s basic framework of values and is congruent with it. This does not imply complete consistency: the degree of con. sistency ean vary for different individuals and different areas of be- havior. It does mean, however, that there is some interplay between the new beliefs and the rest of the person's values. The new behavior can serve to modify existing beliefs and can in turn be modified by them, As a result of this interaction, behavior adopted through inter alization will tend to be relatively idiosyncratic, exible, complex, and differentiated. RESEARCH BASED ON THE M0081. ‘The model itself and its possible implications may be scen more clearly if 1 present a brief summary of the research in which ie was ‘used, This research has moved in three general directions: experimental tests of the relationships proposed by the model, application of the model to the study of personality factors in social influence, and ap- plication of the todel to the analysis of a natural influence situation. Experimental tests of the proposed distinctions between the throe processes. The relationships proposed by the model can be tested by experiments in which the antecedents postulated for a given process are related to the consequents poxulwed for that proess. The frst experiment on this problem varied one of the antecedents—the source of the inftuencing agent's power—and observed the effects of this varia- tion on one of the corsequents—the canditions of performance of the induced response, Subjects (Negro college freshmen) were exposed to a taperecorded interview dealing with an aspect of the Supreme Court decision on school searegation. Four versions of this communication were developed and played to different groups of subjects. The four communications contained the same message, but they differed in the way in which the comrounieator was introduced and presented himself at the beginning of the interview, These differences were designed to vary the source and Gegree of the communicator's power: in one com- munication the speaker was presented as possessing high means control, in the second as possessing high attractiveness, in the dhid as possessing high credibility, and in the fourth (for purposes of comparison) as being low in all three of these sources of power HH. Keteuan, “Compliance,

    You might also like