Milgram, Stanley. ... topic remains one characterized by a plethora of experimental work, but a somewhat limited ... are to study this aspect of social influence.
A Work of Great Potential Influence Milgram, Stanley. Contemporary Psychology: A Journal of Reviews 23.3 (Mar 1978): 129-131.
Résumé Reviews the book, Social Influence and Social Change by Serge Moscovici (1976). The present book is both a critique of American studies of conformity, and the presentation of a new perspective for the study of influence processes. At first glance, it seems that Moscovici has not provided a competing theory of social influence, as he implies. Moscovici argues that uncertainty is not an intrapsychic fact but is itself generated in a social matrix, and can only be properly understood from this perspective. There is a considerable degree of overstatement in Moscovici's account of the prevailing view. There is a striking disparity between the theoretical boldness of the book and the conventional quality of the experiments it has spawned. But this well-translated book remains an impressive achievement, virtually every page contains sensitive insights into human reality, and displays an intellectual breadth rare for one so well informed by the laboratory tradition. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) STUDIES of conformity have produced some of the most arresting findings in social psychology. Yet the topic remains one characterized by a plethora of experimental work, but a somewhat limited theoretical understanding. Although social psychologists have successfully pinpointed variables that lead to greater or lesser amounts of conformity in specific situations, no satisfactory theory of conformity has emerged. The present book, by a leading French social psychologist, is both a critique of American studies of conformity, and the presentation of a new perspective for the study of influence processes. Proceeding from a thoroughgoing knowledge of American laboratory studies, Moscovici seeks to extract the underlying conceptual model, and then attempts to show why the prevailing model provides a distorted picture of the nature and role of social influence in the real world. The prevailing model reaches down to the laboratory. The hundreds of experiments performed in this area, though apparently diverse, are nonetheless constrained by a common conceptual understanding, which Moscovici terms the "functionalist" view. The functionalist view analyzes social influence, taking as its viewpoint a preexisting social world, with its roles, statuses, and norms as givens of the situation. Conformity is seen as the process whereby the person adjusts to these social facts. Those who fail to adjust to social requirements are relegated to the status of "deviants." They may initially stimulate communications from the group, which are aimed at bringing them into line, but unless deviants respond to the increased pressure, they will ultimately be ejected from the group. Influence in the functionalist model is unidirectional, flowing from the group to the individual. Conformity, in this model, has definite functions: It brings the individual into line with the group, permitting coherent functioning in an aggregate of persons. Conformity leads to social stability and is a key mechanism of social control. WHAT is wrong with such a model? According to Moscovici, it is too limited a view of social influence, and one, moreover, in which the emphases are fundamentally misplaced. In its place, Moscovici proposes his "genetic" model. From this perspective the social situation is not treated as a given, which acts unidirectionally to shape the person, but is itself the resultant of a dialectical process between person and society. Not only does the individual adapt to the group, but the group—along with norms, roles, and statuses—may be transformed by the person or by a determined minority. The end product of the interaction between individual and group is not stasis, but innovation. Conflict between individual and group is not a destructive force to be avoided at all cost, but a fundamental precondition of innovation.
Social influence cannot be identified with conformity, which is but one of its expressions, and not— according to Moscovici—its most characteristic one. The quintessential experiment embodying the functionalist view is Asch's famous study of group pressure, in which a lone individual confronts a unanimous majority which, in greater or lesser degree, induces the subject to yield to group opinion. If we accept the terms of Moscovici's analysis, we note an interesting feature of this experiment: By the very nature of the experimental design, there is no possibility that any influence be exerted by the individual on the majority. A fundamental paradigmatic shift is needed if we are to study this aspect of social influence. It is precisely this shift that Moscovici advocates. From Moscovici's genetic perspective, new experiments flow showing how a single individual may influence a majority and demonstrating that when an individual successfully influences a group, the main contributing factor is behavioral style. Consistency of a minority's position, the appearance of autonomy, and behavior reflecting a strong investment in the issue will also have important contributing effects. Moscovici's discussion points to an important domain of knowledge intriguing in its empirical possibilities, and the discussion is rich in insights and suggested lines of development. WHAT of the book as a whole? At first glance, it seems that Moscovici has not provided a competing theory of social influence, as he implies. Rather he has shifted the topic. He wishes to study the processes, not of conformity, but of social change. This is not exactly a new idea. Social change, after all, has long been an established subject for sociological analysis, although Moscovici is correct that it has received relatively little attention by mainstream social psychology. Moscovici is correct that if we think of social change as the underlying model for social influence, quite different considerations than those that at present dominate the literature come to the fore. Yet conformity and social change are complementary aspects of the larger process, not mutually exclusive conceptual categories. Perhaps this criticism is not entirely fair, for in expounding the genetic perspective Moscovici seeks not only to enlarge the domain of phenomena to be considered under the rubric of social influence but also to reinterpret the existing findings within this new framework. At every point, Moscovici challenges the prevailing wisdom. For example, in Asch's experiment, the naive subject's uncertainty about the discriminative task is conventionally seen at the root of that subject's susceptibility to group influence. The empirical evidence is that the more difficult or ambiguous the judgment, the greater the degree of yielding to the group. Moscovici does not deny these findings, but he challenges the idea that uncertainty is a basic cause of social influence, as several theories imply. Festinger's social comparison theory, for example, presupposes that because individuals are unsure of their values, opinions, and abilities, they seek to compare themselves to others who are similar to them. Moscovici observes that we are as likely to feel uncertain because of others as to seek reduction of uncertainty by seeking out comparison. Moreover, a contradiction exists between the theoretical and experimental positions. In social comparison theory, the individual accepts influence as a means of reducing uncertainty; in the experiments on conformity, group members create uncertainty in the naive subject. Above all, Moscovici argues that uncertainty is not an intrapsychic fact but is itself generated in a social matrix, and can only be properly understood from this perspective. The book is bold, insightful, and potentially of great importance. But it has several limitations. First, there is a considerable degree of overstatement in Moscovici's account of the prevailing view. Typical is his assertion that in current social psychology, "all influence processes are seen from the vantage point of conformity, and conformity is believed to underlie the essential features of the process." American social psychology never enjoyed such theoretical consensus. And the statement neglects studies of leadership and the extensive literature on persuasability which, after all, investigate how a single speaker may sway a large audience or population of subjects. Second, there is a striking disparity between the theoretical boldness of the book and the conventional quality of the experiments it has spawned, none of which approaches the power and revelatory force of—
let us say—Asch's classic. Perhaps this demands too much too soon; a new perspective may take decades to express its full empirical potential. But this well-translated book remains an impressive achievement, outstanding for its rich intellectual texture, fund of new ideas, and provocative interpretations. Virtually every page contains sensitive insights into human reality, and displays an intellectual breadth rare for one so well informed by the laboratory tradition. In many respects, the book is an embodiment of the view of social influence that the author so brilliantly advocates. It is a minority view, presented with conviction, style, and polemical force. It seeks not to eliminate conflict, but to draw it out, with a view toward effecting change. Whether it will transform the majority remains a question for the future. For the present, all serious students of social influence should read this immensely stimulating book. Bios Serge Moscovici is Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Laboratory of Social Psychology at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales in Paris. Moscovici, who emigrated from Rumania at the age of 18, earned his doctorate at the Sorbonne. He has been a Visiting Professor at the New School for Social Research and at the Universities of Geneva and Louvain, and a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and at the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. Moscovici is the author of La Psychanalyse: Son image et son public (2nd ed.), Société contre nature, and Hommes domestiques et hommes sauvages. The book under review was sponsored by the National Science Foundation and appeared in English before being published in French. Translators were Carol Sherrard and Greta Heinz. It is Vol. 10 in the European Monographs in Social Psychology series edited by Henri Tajfel. Reviewer Stanley Milgram is Professor of Psychology and former Head of the social psychology doctoral program at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. A PhD of Harvard University, he has taught there and at Yale University. Milgram has received the AAAS Annual Socio-Psychological Prize, a Guggenheim Fellowship, and the Silver Medal of the International Film and Television Festival of New York for his documentary The City and the Self. His book, Obedience to Authority, was nominated for a National Book Award in 1975. Most recently he has published The Individual in a Social World, a collection of his essays and experiments. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/016997
