Modalities of Social Influence

Martin W Bauer Institute of Social Psychology

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

1

The Argument of today

1

Different Modalities of Social Influence

2

The Problem of Rationality and Sub-Rationality

3

Some Reconstruction and Integration Work

4

Moral of the story: the moral dubiousness of influence

An old concern: raising awareness of social influence to protect us against it (the enlightenment effect) Social Psychology: the study of what works at present ! 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

2

Social Influence in social interaction The battle for the hearts and minds of others How do others influence me/us? How can I/we influence them? Hard and soft The many influence the one/few: majority, crowds The many influence the many: contagion, pressure One/few influence many: minority, persuasion, prestige One influences the other: contagion, persuasion, prestige 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

3

Other takes on ‘influence’ Military force: moving in tanks, fortification to keep enemies out Politics hard: legal powers and threat of violence (e.g. police) soft: cultural influence on ‘way of life’ Sociology a) generalised medium of communication like money a code that substitutes for language based on a prestige hierarchy (see Parsons, Luhmann etc) b) Trust: general condition that reduces transaction costs Social Psychology: we will now see ? 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

4

Eristics, Sophistry

Rhetoric

Public sphere Mass behaviour

Prestige community hierarchy

crowds, contagion, normalising, compliance, obedience, conversion

persuasion Representations, frames of mind Norms, attitudes, beliefs Behaviour & actions 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

5

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

6

Crowds and Leadership of Masses Gustave Le Bon (1895) ‘The Age of the Crowd’ 1841-1931

In social company individuals are lulled into a state of hypnosis The power of suggestion: accepting propositions without reasons Crowd being about a hypnotic state in individuals = crowd effect • de-individuation in crowds: lowering the threshold of restraint; • ’effemination’: otherwise rational individuals turn into irrational animals; animal spirits (irrational = women is a 19th century stereotype) • Personality alteration towards impulsiveness, exaggeration, intolerance, simplistic reasoning etc (everything that is despicable happens in crowds) • individuals in mass can be ‘formed like clay’, there is no control left; a need and opportunity for leaders (crowds = in-formed material) 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

7

Critique: Middle panic over politics of the streets (the shock of ‘Paris Commune’ of 1871); ‘fin de siecle’ pessimism on human nature; social factors against rational judgement; assumes that imitation works without reasoning and judgements, which is at most a special case; a theory of political populism; huge success as popular science. Neo-stoic, modern ethos of a ‘rational individual’ (Taylor, 2007) buffered against outside: others, demons, spirits, contact buffered against inside: desire, passion An elitist last stand against the uncontrolled masses 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

8

The Pendulum of Managerial Control (cycles of 35-50 years; see Barley & Kunda, 1992)

‘(Job) design’ Reward Context Extrinsic motivation 28/10/2010

t Task design Content

Intrinsic motivation MBauer LSE

‘Devotion’ Leadership; ‘Charisma’ Identification; Loyalty 9

Contagion and Imitation

(1843-1904)

Gabriel Tarde (2001) [1890] ‘The Laws of Imitation’ two sources of similarity and difference of people: by inheritance and by imitation imitation has two phases: invention and imitation (= sharing intentionality): no laws for invention, but many laws of imitation; lists of principles, for example: 1 imitation proceeds from the inner to the outer man: dress fashion [outer] is anticipated by literary fashions [inner]; ideas [inner] precede behavioural expression [outer]; ends [inner] precede the means [outer]; 2 Imitation follows the social hierarchy of prestige: The aristocrats are the cultural trend setters; see Stars, opinion leaders; List A people in adertising 3 Liquid intake is more easily imitated than food intake: alcoholism is more prevalent than obesity (probably a 19th century observation)

Gabriel Trade (2006) [1901] ‘Opinion and crowds’ Difference between crowds and public opinion: co-presence in street versus co-attention mediated Public opinion = floating conversations, a homogenity of outlook, not only political, also religious Public opinion is strongly selective: focusing attention on X, but not to Y (Affaire Dreyfus > 1895) Historical novelty: the press substitutes crowds in their function to exert political pressure to act 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

10

‘The battle for the hearts and minds’ (Rogers, 1983) •linear: invention (idea) - innovation (product) - diffusion (market) •problem attribution: ‘black box’ the product and work on the social system •sigmoid diffusion curve: adoption rage = ln(p/N-p) = a + bt •profiling of population: e.g. early adopters, late adopters, laggards • multivariate analysis of attitude data: clustering, typologies, regression • media practices: how to reach the different groups [media mix] •strategic communication: ‘battle for the hearts and minds of people’ •mass communication for awareness •Advertising campaigns; marketing; two-step flows •inter-personal communication for adoption decisions

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

11

The diffusion model (e.g. Rogers et al., 1983)

100%

Resistant laggards

Adopters late early

innovators

Adoption rate

50%

density

slow

t1

accelerated

t2

decelerated

t3

Slow again

t

Key criterion = ‘years to 50%’ 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

12

Echoes in ‘viral theories’ of ideas, beliefs Authors like: Dawkins (1976), Sperber (1990) Atran (2002), Boyer (2001)

Ideas modelled in analogy to virus and viral infection, epidemiology To entertain an idea X = being infected by X, being ill •Virulence of an idea (features of beliefs) •Host succeptability •Ecological milieu (e.g. herd immunity)

‘tipping point’

How far does the viral analogy go? (asks Kitcher, 2003) Dr Pasteur: ‘the germ is nothing, the milieu is everything’ Hygiene as intervention: vigilance, contact avoidance, moral cleansing Transmission of object relations y(Ac) => y(Bc) Is ‘y’ before and after transmission identical object relation Many unspecified epidemiological analogues: mutation, rate of recovery, immunity, competition, rate of re-infection after recovery, gestation time etc. 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

13

Sub-rational or rational influence a) The doctrine of suggestion (a 19th century fad) Tarde, LeBon et al. Somnambulism as normal, everyday state of affairs Rationality is exceptional, an elite of cultivated individuals Old idea: ‘Oligo poloi’ (few) against the ‘hoi poloi’ (many) The sovereign mind buffered inside and outside b) Rationality as universal human potential Experimental demonstrations of ‘rationality’ The search for exceptional circumstances Rationality in relation to ego, social and world Either/Or models versus dual process ideas 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

14

Dual-process ideas Elaboration Higher brain, slow, cold

behaviour Cue based, heuristics Lower brain, fast, hot

Dichotomy or continuity of processes ? Discontinuities: rational/sub-rational vs change/stability 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

15

Mustafer Sherif (1906-1988)

Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) Solomon Asch (1907-1996) 28/10/2010

Serge Moscovici (*1925) MBauer LSE

16

Normalisation and Framing of Reality > 1935 Mustafar Sherif (1935) et al.: Emerging norm of judgements; once established, they persist ‘Auto-kinetic phenomenon’ experiments: an ambiguous stimulus situation

Compromising and convergence of judgements in groups 1. Establish an individual norm in repeated observations 2. Bringing individual norms into groups to agree ‘group judgments’ 3. An agreed frame of reference persists, even in individual perceptions 4. The social process as productive process: a basis for co-ordinated action Critique: innocuous situation; an experiments with no real stakes 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

17

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

18

Majority influence > 1950s Experiments on conformity and compliance Unambiguous stimulus situation: three geometrical lines

Solomon Asch et al. ( > 1951): majority influence and conformity Experiment on visual stimuli; majority is briefed for false judgements How is conformity induced; what supports resistance? Normative-motivational influence = avoidance of sanction, need for affiliation = exclusion anxiety = ‘it hurts to be alone’ (litteraly)

Rational basis: in relation to others, preserving a positive self-concept Recent: wisdom of the crowd, majority as signal and information 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

19

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

20

The distress of ostracism and social exclusion •It hurts like physical pain (Panksepp, 2003; Eisenberger et.al, 2004) •Increased immune activity (Dickerson et al., 2009) •increased hormone level: progesterone (Maner et al., 2010) •It hurts, even if exclusion pays off (vanBeest et al., 2006) •Slowing of heart rate (Moor et al, 2010) •Higher cortisol levels in saliva (Blackhart et al., 2007) •Being left in the cold, feels cold (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008) •Craving for warm food (Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008) •Make us more sensitive to cue that signal deception (Bernstein et al., 2008)

So what: we learn from this that we biologically programmed to be social? •Pain killers like Acetaminophen helps when excluded (DeWall et al., 2010) 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

21

Obedience to Authority Stanley Milgram et al ( > 1963) :

Pretext experiment: ‘Learning by pain’ [disguised purposes: how far do we go?] People are naturally hesitant, but this is turned-off by authority The ‘actant state’ = actant abdicates responsibility; ‘I am only a part of the machine’ = the banality of evil (Hannah Arendt) Compliance rates as cultural indictor: a national ‘litmus test’ [a model for genocide studies] A model case of AbuGraib, holocaust? but note the picture !!! 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

22

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

23

Milgram (1963) Exp 1

USA (New Haven)

65

Exp 2

USA

62.5

Exp 3

USA

40

Exp 5

USA

65

Exp 6

USA

50

Exp 10

USA

47.5

Holland (1967)

USA

75

Ancona & Pareyson (1968)

Italy

85

Rosenhan (1969)

USA

85

% of participants who continued to max

Podd (1969)

USA

31

450 Volts with electro shocks

Edwards et al, (1969)

South Africa

87.5

Ring et al. (1970)

USA

91

Mantell (1971)

West Germany

85

Bock (1972)

USA

40

Powers & Geen (1972)

USA

83

Rogers (1973)

USA

37

Kilhan & Mann (1974)

Australia

28

Shalala (1974)

USA

30

subjects

Constanza (1976)

USA

81

Source: Blass (2004, p302f);

Shanab & Yahya (1977)

Jordan

73

Shanab & Yahya (1978)

Jordan

62.5

Miranda et al. (1981)

Spain

50

Schurz (1985)

Austria

80

Burger (2006)

USA (California)

1975) issues: consent of and harm to

Burger (2009): ratio of participants continuing after 150 Vs

MBauer LSE

24

Conformity (e.g. Asch)

Obedience (e.g. Milgram)

•group of peers (us and them) •imitation involved: acting as modelled •implicit pressure •influence denied by actor •fear of exclusion •Public compliance, private dissent

•social status hierarchy •no imitation, doing as verbally told •explicit command & request •admitted influence of authority •respect for authority, expectation of reward •Transfer of responsibility

a) social rationality: respect of others, it is costly to check everything myself; moral community b) Ego-rationality: need for affiliation; ostracism is distressing and better avoided 28/10/2010

Social rationality: loyalty to legitimate authority; hierarchy as division of labour, efficient co-ordination Sub-rational Identification with leader: ‘I want to be like you’

MBauer LSE

25

Alone or with partner

After-Image

•Short presentations •Recall of colours •Recognition of colours later: priming and latency 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

26

Minority influence > 1967 [Moscovici et al.] Experiments on influence of minority and conversion Reversal of Asch’s paradigm: the deviant minority is briefed to stay firm Back to ambiguous stimulus like Sherif: colour after-images Behavioural grammar: rigidity, consistency, autonomy/independence Symbolic-informational change: majority reassesses its own assumptions / beliefs, [not avoiding stress nor satisfying a need, but world-oriented rationality] Sleeper effect: private change precedes public change (Tarde); source of information is forgotten: the tragedy of succesful minorities Nomic and anomic minorities: organised versus disorganised deviance; influence is only possible for nomic-organised minority

Paradox of minority influence: behavioural grammar implies conformity within the minority [an organised, nomic minority: see Leninism, terror cells]

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

27

Majority influence

Minority influence

Maintaining a consensus, common sense

challenging an existing consensus, common sense

assimilation of minority to majority

accommodation of minority in majority

Process

process shift towards new consensus due to behavioural style/grammar •consistency, commitment, unanimity •perceived autonomy, independence •(flexible) rigidity

Stabilising existing consensus in face of challenge •coercion, group pressure, threat of exclusion; •attraction, seduction comparison process: focus on persons; affiliation and identification with majority (normative rationality)

Effect •public compliance, no internalisation •private dissent [inner exil] •temporary shifts in opinions; peripheral change

•Normative, social rationality •Ego rationality 28/10/2010

validation process: focus on topic; more careful assessment of information (objective rationality) Effect •public rejection and latent process: conversion, internalisation •‘sleeper effect’: changing attitudes and forgetting the influence, concluding ‘it is obvious, it is not’. •persistence: more durable shifts, change at the attitudinal core •more thinking, elaboration leads to stronger attitude-behaviour relationship •World rationality, objectivity

MBauer LSE

28

Integration work Bringing things together 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

29

Social interations create structures of common sense CSense = social representations like attitudes, beliefs, ideas, notions The problem: establishing, maintaining, and re-designing CS in the context of intra- and inter-group conflicts (between groups A, B, C) Multiple common senses not one ‘sensus communis’ Conflict resolution over communality: processes of structuration

‘Civilisation’

by violence and force: by military, warfare [hard power] by decisions of institutional authorities [courts, scriptures, science] by social influence in imperfect public sphere [soft power] by deliberation in ‘idealised’ public sphere [power-free discourse] 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

30

Social influence = negotiations between group A and B Symmetrical [ A ~ B ] Normalisation = Compromising without a strong project, ‘no axes to grind’ equal resources; Habermas’ ideal speech situation

Asymmetrical [ A > B ] strong projects involved, basic values at stake Assimilation [bring minority into the fold] ‘majority influence’: strategy of the strong: public agreement / private disagreement [normative]

Accommodation [make inroads with the majority] ‘minority influence’: strategy of the weak; public disagreement / private endorsement [informational] Paradox of minority influence: in order to exert influence, the minority needs to have a strong internal discipline [= internal majority influence; professionalism]

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

31

Social co-ordination of activity: Establishing, Maintaining and Altering Moral Communality (a spiral of communication)

N

The newcomer

Normalisation [Sherif type] Assimilation [Asch, Milgram type Tarde type] Accommodation [Moscovici type] deviance

Representations = normative constraint = artefacts 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

32

Function

Modalities of Rational Influence

Normalisation

Frame of reference – compromise

Assimilation

Majority influence - compliance Authority, Prestige – obedience Accommodation Minority Influence – conversion

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

33

Extension I Mass Mediation scripture, print, broadcasting, internet 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

34

Limitation of experimental paradigms Social influence experiments are ‘laboratory dramas’: face-to-face situations arranged by an experimenter; limited ecological validity, because modern social influence is heavily based on mass communication ironically experiments are banned under ‘ethics code’ but TV makes use of their dramatic qualities (dramatic effect, not causal claim is at stake)

Duality of face-to-face and formal communication? Small groups experiments = face-to-face; co-presence of others What happens if mass mediation comes into play? Two different processes; different degrees of freedom; Can we analogize? Do we have to consider emergent properties?

Social influence is exerted via informal but also via mass mediated (i.e. professional preparation of meaning) 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

35

Environmental issues in 'The London Times' 1000

Global warming, climate change Ozone layer, ozone hole Population explosion 100

10

28/10/2010

Source: C Tennant, LSE06

MBauer LSE

2006*

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

1978

1976

1974

1972

1970

1968

1966

1964

1962

1960

1958

1956

1954

1952

1950

1

36

Media Saliance, Evaluation and Public Optimism on Biotechnology

100

1.20 Optimism Salience UKeval-std

0.80

0

-0.80

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

1

-0.60

99

10

97

-0.40

95

20

93

-0.20

91

30

89

0.00

87

40

85

0.20

83

50

81

0.40

79

60

77

0.60

75

70

73

index 1999=100 / % optimism

80

1.00

evaluation std

90

37

intensity

Exploring the ‘resonance’ between two spheres Mass media on topic X: attention and framing

Match +

Media effects

Emerging norms of meaning Audience research

28/10/2010

Conversations on X: salience and meaning

MBauer LSE

38

Mediation models: formal communication noise C, M

S S

R

R1 R2 R3 Rn

C, M C

S1

‘different worlds’ Differentiation of contents and receptions

M’ S2 C

C

S1

M’’’

S1

Shannon-Weaver HIFI engineering model

Audience autonomy research

M’’

Two-step flows

S2

Social Representations

S2 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

39

The historical pendulum of ‘belief’ in power of mass media

Weak effect 1950s, 1990s 28/10/2010

? MBauer LSE

Strong effect 1930s, 1970s 40

Mass media effect hypotheses (resonance ideas) alternatives to ‘magic bullet’ ‘epidermic needle’ or ‘hifi models’ Agenda setting (weak): (McCoombs, Rogers et al.) Agenda setting (strong): (Mazur et al. ) quantity of coverage of fluoridation, vaccination Framing of issues (Gamson et al.): metaphors and images Cultivation under high exposure (Gerbner et al.) ‘mean world’; coding of Red and Green biotechnology Consistency-or-experts hypotheses (Rothman et al.) credibility needs agreeing expert agreement: see ‘global warming’ Gap hypotheses for knowledge, motivation etc (Tichenor et al.) IT, computing, internet more prevalent among the educated Spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann) dissent shuts up: Anti-GM crops voices in the US 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

41

Outcome

Informal, face-to-face ‘experimental’ paradigms

Normalisation

Compromise as average (Sherif, Lewin)

Formal communication mass mediation effects

Establishing a norm

Pluralism among equals; No a-priori, no project; [Storning, forming, norming, performing]

liberal ideal of free speech; ‘power free discourse arrangements’ reaching a common understanding

Assimilation

Normative pressure (Asch)

Spiral of silence [Cultivation analysis]

Settled towards majority

Conformity Fear of exclusion; affiliation need ‘Private exil’

avoiding, ending conflict Sustaining a norm

Obedience to authority (Milgram) Turning off hesitations Action without responsibility

Consistency-of-experts gate keeper / two step flow Inf = f (message, source, aud)

Accommodation

Minority influence (Moscovici)

Settled towards minority

Behaviour style Influence is informational Private precedes public change Sleeper effect of change: delayed

small stakes

creating conflict Changing a norm

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

[Agenda setting] [Cultivation analysis] [Framing analysis]

? 42

Extension II Artefacts 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

43

A historical puzzle: the missing arteact in SocPsych !! Solomon Asch’s in ‘Social Psychology’ (1952) ‘there remains to be mentioned one great consequence of social interaction – the creation of a realm of social facts’. Interaction produces a host of objects, roles and relations of great permanence …….’ [p178] ‘Interactions between men generate a host of phenomena of this order, which form the fabric of social existence; material equipment, beliefs and ideas, language and the human character themselves are its massive products’ [p181] But where are the objects in social psychology? 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

44

Nuclear bombs and nuclear power stations worldwide 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

bomb index power units index

10

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

05

20

02

20

99

19

96

19

93

19

90

19

87

19

84

19

81

19

78

19

75

19

72

19

69

19

66

19

63

19

60

19

57

54

19

19

51

19

48

19

19

45

0

45

The differential uptake of GM soya in the world 100 % of planted soya area

90 80 70 60

US Brazil Argentina World

50 40 30 20 10 0

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

46

Exploring the ‘fiting’ between two spheres

Objects X

diffusion

affordances User research

28/10/2010

Everyday use of object X

MBauer LSE

47

Object relations (ex-post factum) •

Attitude ‘object’ ex-post-facto: the object already exists: e.g. cognitive dissonance after fait accompli, forced situations

•

affective (like/dislike) reactions based on group specific norms or values

•

Identity: possessions as self-expressive, fashion items, favourite things, souvenirs, status symbols, memorabilia (symbolic re-appropriation of existing things; our autonomy vis-à-vis things);

•

Developmental: ‘thing constitution’ as assimilation and accommodation of the child’s mentality growing towards the adult object, overcoming ego-centrism and socialisation [e.g. Piaget]

Others ? 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

48

The Scandal of Artefacts: social influence by stealth 1. Body building and mind training: ‘configuring the user’ training for force or skill to handle it [e.g. a heavy machine, a fine tool] 2. Things have action in-scripted [inscriptions; user’s guide; how to do it] required action schemata, routines of usage with some degree of freedom 3. Avoids violence: framing interaction without body contact e.g. create distance between actors; with e.g. a counter or a fortification 4. Affordance; demand characteristics (visual cueing of actions, without previous experience) surfaces to step on, buttons to press, levers to push or pull (= designer rules) 5. Goal shifting [Wundt’s heteronomy of purposes = in-built purposes are never final] buying a car for work, then thinking about a car holiday, internet for nuclear warfare, then becoming a general communication network 6. Dependency: taken-for-granted, cannot life/work without it skill lost, no time to do it the old way; depending on supply chain for parts 7. Delegation of a legal norm; instead of a legal norm. a fence or speed bumps instead of police or friendly signs [no trespassing!] cigarette machines that require id card; mobile phone: if stolen, receive messages 8. Negotiation by fait-accompli facts on the ground; leaving no choice; reduction of dissonance after the fact 9. Things as root metaphor for thinking about self, psyche, human identity e.g. Self = a programmed computer in need of debunking and reprogramming 10. The normative power of the factual: What is, ought to be (naturalistic fallacy). 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

49

Affordances and Moral Imperatives Direct, unmediated perception inviting action tendencies (Gibson, 1986) : a ‘thing to grasp’, a ‘walkable surface’, a ‘picture to look at’, a ‘wall to stay out‘ • Lock-in: ‘emotional design’ (captology), in-scripted objects: a heavy Hotel key annoys and reminds you: leave it at the desk • Inter-locking: an particular action is required before another can take place ‘A bank till requires you to pull your card before the money is dispensed’: you shall not forget your credit card • Lock-out: makes a particular action impossible automatic access check, e.g. via finger print or iris: no entry ‘a wall that is difficult to climb’: Do not trespass ‘Boundary objects’: objects are different things for different people e.g. ‘Nanotechnology’: many work on it, and understand it differently. 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

50

Normalising symmetrical

Making beliefs

Designing things

Compromise (Sherif); Equilibration (Lewin) Deliberation (Habermas)

Association by translation (drifting) (AN-Theory) User-centred installations

compliance to majority (Asch) obedience to experts (Milgram)

Diffusion research (fait accompli) System building (Hughes)

assymmetical

Assimilating

Accommodating conversion of majority by minority (Moscovici) constraint bias ‘less norms the better’

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

? [Theory of resistance] enabling bias ‘progress ideology’

51

Social Co-ordination of Activity: Establishing, Maintaining and Altering Communality with Artefact-Fetish (a spiral)

N Normalisation Prototyping [Sherif type]

newcomers

Diffusion [Asch, Milgram type]

Redesign by Resistance [Moscovici type] Deviant use

Representations = constraints of norms and artefacts 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

52

Eristics, Sophistry

Rhetoric

Public Sphere Mass behaviour

Prestige community hierarchy

Leadership, contagion, normalising, compliance, obedience, conversion

Circumstances of Persuasion Representations, frames of mind Norms, attitudes, beliefs Behaviour & actions 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

53

And the moral of the story is …… 1. Six modalities of social influence and present echoes 2. Sub-rational and rational modalities: what is ‘rationality’? 3. Three functions in relation to co-ordination of activity: normalisation, assimilation, accommodation 4. Two necessary extensions of models: mass mediation, artefacts Manipulating the context of persuasion ‘under the circumstances, I am persuaded by what you say’ When is a situation ‘persuasive’, when ‘violating autonomy? An intuition that circumstances can be morally dubious ‘under the influence of x’ disqualifies as rational persuasion dubiousness: guns, drugs, alcohol, food, make up, nice words? 28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

54

The public sphere as circumstance of being persuaded Communication action: common understanding

Ideal Public sphere

Deliberation

persuasion

Corrupt public sphere

social influence

Strategic communication: efficiency and success

Reason 28/10/2010

Violence MBauer LSE

55

Additional references regarding ideas towards integration of modalities Bauer MW (2011) Atoms, Bytes & Genes. Public resistance and Techno-Scientific Responses, London, Routledge Sammut G and MW Bauer (2011) Social influence: modes and modalities, in: DW Hook, B Franks & MW Bauer (eds) The Social Psychology of Communicaition, London, Palgrave Bauer MW (2008) The ‘fait accompli’ and its social influence, DIOGENE, 217, 68-83. Bauer MW (2006) The paradoxes of resistance in Brazil, in: Gaskell G & M Bauer (eds) Genomic & Society: legal, ethical and social dimension, London, Earthscan, p228-249 Bauer MW (2005) The mass media and the biotechnology controversy, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (1), 5-22 Bauer MW &G Gaskell (eds) (2002) Biotechnology – the making of a global controversy, Cambridge, CUP. Bauer MW (2002) Arenas, platforms and the biotechnology movement, Science Communication, 24, 144161.

28/10/2010

MBauer LSE

56