How Do Social Influence and Power Work?
From shared judgments and social expectations to dependence, dissent, and change.
- Level
- Introductory
- Reading load
- 10 core readings in 5 units
- Prerequisites
- No methods course is required. The guidance introduces the distinctions needed to compare arguments and studies. How Do Other People and Social Situations Shape Us? offers useful preparation; How Do Attitudes Form and Change? is a related, separate path.
- Last reviewed
- September 2026
Introduction
Agreement can be visible while its reasons remain hidden. People may learn from one another, seek approval, accept a request, share a purpose, or depend on someone who controls their opportunities. Similar conduct can therefore express different beliefs and choices. The study of influence asks how to distinguish these processes, while the study of power asks which alternatives are truly available.
This path begins with motives and shared judgments, then distinguishes kinds of norms and their place in collective life. It compares small requests with authority, connects power to dependence and constraints, and ends with dissent and changing expectations. Conceptual frameworks supply questions that experiments, reviews, and field studies help us investigate.
By the end, you should be able to identify competing explanations for the same response, specify an informative comparison, recognize the alternatives available to each person, and evaluate an attempt to redirect influence. The longer reviews and chapter reward several sittings; following their reasoning does not require reproducing every calculation.
Unit 1 of 5
What do we learn from others’ judgments?
A shared answer can reflect useful information, a relationship, or a view of oneself. Begin with those possibilities, then examine an experiment in which judgments converge. Ask separately whether individuals improve, the group becomes more accurate, and confidence rises.
Reading
1 of 10Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Major synthesis · Foundational argument · Moderate · Full work: 31 pages
Use the three motives as competing, sometimes overlapping explanations.
Why you’re reading it. Establish the vocabulary for the whole path.
A question to consider. A committee agrees on a forecast. What observation would help distinguish learning from approval-seeking?
Reading
2 of 10How Social Influence Can Undermine the Wisdom of Crowd Effect
Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011). How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), 9020–9025. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008636108
Landmark empirical study · Methodological contribution · Moderate · Full work: 6 pages
Compare agreement with accuracy and confidence.
Why you’re reading it. Test what a consensus can establish.
A question to consider. How would you change the forecast exercise to distinguish useful new information from repeated versions of the same estimate?
Unit 2 of 5
What do norms ask of us?
Norms can mean personal expectations, collective rules, or patterns sustained by institutions. A broad map makes those differences visible. A focused environmental review then asks how information about prevalence and approval can pull behavior in different directions.
Reading
3 of 10Mapping the Social-Norms Literature: An Overview of Reviews
Legros, S., & Cislaghi, B. (2020). Mapping the social-norms literature: An overview of reviews. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619866455
Major synthesis · Foundational argument · Moderate · Full work: 19 pages
Connect definitions with the people, rules, and outcomes they make visible.
Why you’re reading it. Keep collective conditions alongside individual expectations.
A question to consider. Who sets, enforces, benefits from, and bears the costs of a workplace expectation to stay late?
Reading
4 of 10Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01242
Foundational argument · Major synthesis · Accessible · Full work: 5 pages
Apply the distinction between prevalence and approval to a concrete message.
Why you’re reading it. Examine a particular influence pathway within the broader norm map.
A question to consider. What might a notice saying ‘Almost everyone stays late’ communicate, even if its stated purpose is to discourage overwork?
Unit 4 of 5
What does power change?
Agreement takes place within relationships that offer unequal alternatives. First locate power in dependence, then consider a psychological account of its consequences. Keep control of resources, felt freedom, responsibility, and accountability distinct while comparing their possible effects.
Reading
7 of 10Power-Dependence Relations
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089716
Foundational argument · Moderate · Full work: 11 pages
Map valued outcomes and alternatives in both directions.
Why you’re reading it. Add the structure of the relationship to explanations of compliance.
A question to consider. Which changes would reduce a worker's dependence, and which would merely make the existing demands easier to tolerate?
Reading
8 of 10Power, Approach, and Inhibition
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Foundational argument · Major synthesis · Moderate · Full work: 20 pages
Connect dependence with the predicted effects of reward, threat, and constraint.
Why you’re reading it. Compare structural power with its proposed psychological consequences.
A question to consider. How might accountability change a supervisor's behavior while leaving control of resources intact?
Unit 5 of 5
How do people resist or redirect influence?
Influence can alter how a group thinks without securing agreement, and it can change expectations about the future. Compare dissent with a norm intervention. Ask what each changes, whose participation matters, and what evidence would justify extending the findings to a new setting.
Reading
9 of 10Minority Influence Theory
Nemeth, C. J. (2012). Minority influence theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 362–378). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n44
Foundational argument · Major synthesis · Moderate · Full work: 17 pages
Compare changing an answer with expanding the reasoning behind it.
Why you’re reading it. Recognize influence that a final vote could miss.
A question to consider. What measures would show whether a committee considered a wider range of evidence after dissent?
Reading
10 of 10Dynamic Norms Promote Sustainable Behavior, Even if It Is Counternormative
Sparkman, G., & Walton, G. M. (2017). Dynamic norms promote sustainable behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617719950
Landmark empirical study · Methodological contribution · Moderate · Full work: 12 pages
Bring norms, context, and outcome measurement to the intervention comparisons.
Why you’re reading it. Evaluate an attempt to redirect influence.
A question to consider. Before using a changing-norm message about working hours, how would you establish its truth, relevance, behavioral effect, and dependence on the setting?
Scope and omissions
This path develops information, social expectations, requests, authority, dependence, and resistance. It is not a manual for securing compliance, an exhaustive account of leadership, or a complete explanation of institutional inequality. Close relationships, collective identity and action, discrimination, cooperation, and aggression require their own questions. Social learning and attitude formation also have distinct treatments.
Much of the experimental evidence comes from Western universities or particular U.S. communities. The cross-disciplinary norm review broadens the concepts, but does not make these samples representative of all social worlds. Historical coercion and laboratory deception require careful interpretation; neither a familiar experiment nor a general theory establishes what happens in every institution.
Synthesis
Social influence brings together several processes beneath a familiar appearance of agreement. Information, approval, commitments, identification, and unequal alternatives can each shape a response. Explanation requires us to specify the relationship, the choices available, and the outcome at issue. Evidence then has a clearer task: to distinguish the processes that the outward resemblance leaves concealed.
Power concerns both a structure of dependence and possible consequences for thought and action. Resistance can alter that structure, challenge a shared purpose, expand consideration of alternatives, or help create new expectations. None of these routes guarantees accurate judgment or beneficial change.
Return to a real group decision. Describe two explanations for its agreement, map the resources and alternatives of those involved, and propose a comparison that could distinguish the explanations. Then ask what dissent might change besides the final answer.
Continue with How Do Close Relationships Form and Function? to examine friendship, attraction, mutual dependence, responsiveness, and the social conditions of close relationships.
For how evaluations develop and relate to action, continue with How Do Attitudes Form and Change?. For the wider field, return to How Do Other People and Social Situations Shape Us?.
Further reading
Optional. Not part of the core sequence.
- Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 629–636. Paper. Historical extension: inspect an original formulation and test of the informational–normative distinction.
- Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. Paper. Historical source for the authority discussion; compare observed behavior with its interpretation and ethical context.
- Burger, J. M. (1999). The foot-in-the-door compliance procedure: A multiple-process analysis and review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 303–325. Paper. Deeper synthesis of alternative explanations and conditions for sequential-request effects.
- Moskowitz, D. S. (2004). Does elevated power lead to approach and reduced power to inhibition? Comment on Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson (2003). Psychological Review, 111(3), 808–811. Paper. Methodological challenge: ask which comparisons distinguish separate effects of gaining and losing power.
- Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. Paper. The earlier theoretical statement behind the broader dissent chapter.
- Sparkman, G., Weitz, E., Robinson, T. N., Malhotra, N., & Walton, G. M. (2020). Developing a scalable dynamic norm menu-based intervention to reduce meat consumption. Sustainability, 12(6), Article 2453. Paper. Later field and online work involving the same researchers; examine small and heterogeneous effects when an intervention is scaled.