Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Social Influence Network Theory: Toward a Science of Strategic Modification of Interpersonal Influence Systems
Pages 89-100

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 89...
... Toward Be development of such a science and within the framework of social influence network theory, some key lines of research are outlined Cat are related to Be operation and s~uc~al dynamics of ~nte~person~ influence networks and ~at, In my view, would advance Be development of a science concerned wad Be strategic modification of interpersonal influence systems. ' Direct all correspondence to Professor Noah E
From page 90...
... Social influence network theory offers a dis~ncHy sociological perspective on the attitude and opinion change process; it is a realization of a structural social psychology Hat was at the core of social psychological work in psychology in the 1950s and 1960s, during He flowering of He group dynamics field, but Hat currently is not being addressed by the more cogn~nvely-onented generation of psychologists. Festinger, French, Newcomb, and Cartwright, among other founding members of modern social psychology, were social network analysts who sought to build a theoretical foundation for social psychology in which network structures figured prominently; these social psychologists underwood the potential importance of social networks in He development of a science of group dynamics but their agenda was derailed by He cognitive revolution in psychology.
From page 91...
... 1.2 SOCIAL INli[UENCE NE1~VORK THEORY There are several lines of work in social psychology on so-called "combinatorial" theories of consensus fommation and group decision-making that focus on how agreements are formed in groups when there is an initial state of disagreement on an issue (Davis 1973; Fne& and Johnsen 1990; 1999; Latane PHI; ~996; Laughlin ~980; Stasser, weir, and Davis ~989; Witte and Davis ~996~. My colleague, Eugene Johnsen, and ~ have developed one of these comb~natonal thrones social influence network theory (Fnedkin 1991; 1998; 1999; Friedkin and Johnsen 1990; 1997, 1999~.
From page 92...
... Thus, I abandoned work on a simulation model of attitude and opinion change when it became apparent that a simpler mathematical mode} would suffice. In this light, an Important conmbunor~ of social influence network theory is in 92 DYNAMIC SOCIAL NETWORK MODELING AND ANALYSIS
From page 93...
... Ike interpersonal influences of the core members were projected throughout the network to the other members, including most of the school board members' and He cross-pressures Tom He disagreement among He influentials produced, in each group, a distribution of resource allocation preferences that was roughly evenly split between a flat and compensatory preference. I was able to show wad a s~mulahon Hat He equiiiDn~n dis~buton of allocation preferences is susceptible to substantial modification; i.e., that a change in the initial preference of a core influential could produce a substantial shift in He equilibrium distribution of group members' resource allocation preferences; see Table I
From page 94...
... 25 Cen=1 Office -3.79 C 86 95 49 Cenual Office -267.44 C 98 98 8CenumlOBice 1.18 F 66 64 26 Cen=1 Office 10.35 F 24 8 58 School Board 26.95 F 3 2 Group E (49% Flat) 9 School Board -~.97 C 58 65 20 Cenmal Office -3.67 C 62 73 22 Cen=1 Office -23.91 C 92 95 51 Cenual Office -2.50 C 59 68 66 Principal -3.51 C 60 69 19 Central Office 3.00 F 40 31 65 Community 44.51 F 3 2 94 DYNAMIC SOCIAL NETWORK MODELING AND ANALYSIS
From page 95...
... , and it appears to be associated wad cen - Sized influence networks and homogeneous distnbu~aons of What positions on an issue. Social influence network theory pumice Cat equilibrium opinions are always in the range of the distribution of initial opinions; hence, some heterogeneity of initial positions is crucial to a thorough vetting of an issue.
From page 96...
... Feasible structural modifications also include changes in the persons who are involved in the influence network: Me addition of one or more new members who have particular configurations of interpersonal influences or the loss of one or members. Structural modifications also include changes in the pattern of nonzero interpersonal influences: the addition of new lines of influence, or the loss of extant lines.
From page 97...
... A research program on an applied science of influence networks cannot be pursued without a broad appreciation of Me various types of work that are unport~t In its development. The program includes applied wow on Me technology of making modifications, me~odolog~cal work on Me development of measures of Bedsores' susceptibilities and interpersonal influences, mathematical work on mode} development and refinement, experimental wow Cat probes Me meets of basic assumptions, and field studies that allow an assessment of the reliability and precision of He model's predictions.
From page 98...
... Although the mathematical structure of social influence network theory is simple, Me specified process is consistent wad a number of previous independent efforts to model the process of interpersonal influence. Indeed, Me ~eoreuca1 convergence on roughly Me same mechanism is a remarkable development in the social sciences.
From page 99...
... For~com~ng. "influence Networks in School Board Policy Groups: An Analysis of Resource Adocation Preferences." In Social Organization of Schooling, edited by L
From page 100...
... 1996. "Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Grows." MaLwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum DYNAMIC SOCIAL NETWORK MODELING AND ANALYSIS


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.