Social Influence Mechanisms on Personality

What do we, as people, have in common, and how do we differ from one another—and why? From a cultural perspective, the focus is on differences: behaviors, ideas, and traditions that help identify a group and are passed down from generation to generation. The vast diversity of attitudes and behaviors characteristic of each culture shows to what extent we are shaped by the norms and roles of our own culture. Yet, psychologists conducting cross-cultural research are also interested in what they call “universal norms” shared by all people. Despite their differences, cultures do have some common norms. One such universal norm regulates relationships between people of different statuses.

All cultures require people to perform social roles, which often leads to the internalization of “performed” behaviors. This means that by playing a different role, one can adopt a new perspective. But what are these invisible social forces that draw us together or push us apart? How powerful are they? Studying social influence helps us uncover the subtle levers by which our social worlds shape us. These mechanisms include behavioral attitudes (social roles), cultural tradition, social conformity, persuasion principles, and group belonging.

By understanding these influences, we can better grasp why people feel and act the way they do. We can also become less susceptible to manipulation against our own wishes and more effective at influencing others.

Social Roles

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts.”
— William Shakespeare

Like Shakespeare, psychologists who study role behavior see social life as similar to a play, with its own scenes, masks, and scripts. Social roles, like the character Jaques in “As You Like It,” outlive their performers. These roles offer a certain freedom and room for improvisation; whether a performance is good or bad depends on how the role is played. However, every role has essential aspects that must be fulfilled. For example, a student must at least attend exams, complete coursework, and maintain passing grades.

When only a few norms are associated with a social category (e.g., pedestrians must walk on the right side of the sidewalk and cross only at a green light), we don’t consider this a social role. A role is defined by a whole set of norms. I can easily list many norms that guide my actions as a professor and as a father. I may perform these roles in my own style and break less important norms (for example, I’m often late because I value my time), but breaking the most important norms (not showing up for class, abusing my children) could result in being fired or losing parental rights.

Roles are powerful sources of influence. We tend to internalize the roles we play. On a first date or your first day at a new job, you’re constantly aware of your role. As you get used to it, this self-monitoring fades, and what once felt awkward becomes natural.

Many refugees, immigrants, missionaries, Peace Corps workers, and students studying abroad, as well as managers in international corporations, are familiar with these feelings. It takes time to learn how to communicate and behave properly in a foreign country. Almost everyone who adapts to life abroad experiences reverse culture shock upon returning home (Sussman, 2000).

The “smoke of the homeland” is no longer as “sweet and pleasant.” Even if a person doesn’t notice it, their behavior, values, and identity have shifted to help them fit into the role of a citizen of another country. Before they can think and act according to their own culture’s norms again, they must go through a period of “reacculturation.”

In George Orwell’s novel “Animal Farm,” the animals overthrow their human owners and create a society where “all animals are equal.” Over time, the pigs, who take on managerial roles, begin to shirk work and behave according to their new status. “All animals are equal,” they insist, “but some animals are more equal than others.”

According to Lawrence Messé, Norbert Kerr, and David Sattler, Orwell’s pigs are not the only example of status influencing self-perception (Messé, Kerr & Sattler, 1992). In both everyday life and laboratory studies, people who are assigned higher status often start to believe they deserve respect or have the ability to lead others. This was demonstrated in Ronald Humphrey’s “Office” experiment (Humphrey, 1985). Participants were randomly assigned as managers or clerks. As expected, managers gave orders and performed more skilled tasks. By the end of the experiment, both clerks and managers saw the managers (who were randomly chosen and no more capable than the clerks) as more competent, persistent, and helpful—true leaders.

Similarly, playing a subordinate role can undermine self-confidence. Ellen Langer and Ann Benevento found this in an experiment (Langer & Benevento, 1978) where New York women solved math problems first individually, then in pairs with one as “boss” and the other as “assistant.” After a third round working alone, “bosses” solved more problems than in the first round, while “assistants” solved fewer. Similar effects were found in studies with elementary school students (Jemmott & Gonzalez, 1989; Musser & Graziano, 1991). Subordinate roles undermine self-efficacy.

Role Reversal

Playing roles can also be a source of positive change. By actively taking on new roles, people either change themselves or develop empathy for those whose roles differ from their own. Psychodrama, a form of psychotherapy, uses role-playing for this purpose. In George Bernard Shaw’s play “Pygmalion,” Eliza Doolittle, a Cockney flower girl, discovers that if she acts like a lady and others treat her as such, she truly becomes a lady. What didn’t exist before becomes reality.

Roles are often “paired,” with defined relationships: mother (father) and child, husband and wife, teacher and student, doctor and patient, employer and employee, police and citizen. Role reversal can help each participant better understand the other. La Rochefoucauld believed that the main problem in many conversations and arguments is that people focus too much on their own statements and not enough on clearly responding to others: “Even the most charming and intelligent conversationalists mostly pretend to listen, so eager are they to return to their own ideas” (La Rochefoucauld, 1665, No. 139).

Thus, a negotiator or group leader can create better communication by having both sides switch roles and defend the other’s viewpoint. Alternatively, before presenting their own position, each side could be asked to present the opponent’s position in a way that satisfies the opponent. Next time you have a tough argument with a friend or parent, pause. If each of you restates the other’s arguments and tries to imagine their feelings before expressing your own, your mutual understanding will improve.

So far, we’ve discussed our biological similarities as humans, cultural differences, how norms and roles vary within each culture, and how the norms and roles of one culture differ from another’s.

Attitudes and behaviors always depend on culture, but the processes by which attitudes influence behavior are much less culture-dependent. The expectations for teenagers in Nigeria and Japan differ from those in North America and Europe, but in all cultures, social relationships are guided by hopes placed on those performing certain roles. Nearly 100 years ago, G.K. Chesterton put it well: “The moment you understand why men on Bond Street wear black hats, you will also understand why men in Timbuktu wear red feathers.”

Culture and Gender

The dependence of gender roles on time and place is a vivid illustration of cultural influence.

As mentioned earlier, culture unites large groups of people and is passed down through generations: ideas, attitudes, behavioral norms, and traditions. Culture shapes people’s views on appropriate behavior for men and women, and the power of these views is evident in the ostracism faced by those who defy expectations (Kite, 2001). In all countries, girls help more with household chores and care for younger children, while boys spend more time playing independently (Edwards, 1991). Even in modern North American families where both spouses work, men mostly handle repairs, while most childcare falls to women (Bianchi et al., 2000; Biernat & Wortman, 1991).

It’s often said that gender socialization gives girls “roots” and boys “wings.” In the past 50 years, Caldecott Medal-winning children’s books have shown girls with household items (mops, needles, pots, pans) four times more often than boys, and boys with tools, plows, or weapons five times more often than girls (Crabb & Bielawski, 1994). As a result, when children grow up, “women everywhere do most of the housework” (United Nations, 1991). “Everywhere, cooking and dishwashing remain primarily women’s responsibilities.” Such behavioral expectations define gender roles.

The influence of gender role expectations was demonstrated in an experiment by Mark Zanna and Susan Pack with Princeton University female students (Zanna & Pack, 1975). The students described themselves in a questionnaire supposedly for a tall, single, older man they were about to meet. Those who believed the man preferred a traditional housewife described themselves as more traditional than those expecting to meet a man who liked strong, ambitious women. Moreover, in a subsequent problem-solving test, women expecting a non-sexist man performed 18% better than those expecting a traditional man. This “self-adjustment” to the male ideal was less pronounced if the man was less “attractive”—a married, short freshman. In a parallel experiment by Dean Morier and Sarah Seroy, men also adjusted their self-presentation to match the preferences of an attractive woman (Morier & Seroy, 1994).

But does culture shape gender roles, or are they simply a reflection of behaviors predetermined by nature? The diversity of gender roles across cultures and eras suggests they are shaped by culture.

The Influence of Culture on Gender Roles

Should women do housework? Should they focus more on helping their husbands’ careers than their own? John Williams, Debra Best, and colleagues asked students from 14 cultures these questions (Williams & Best, 1990b). Almost all women surveyed had more “egalitarian” views than their male peers, but differences between countries were much greater. For example, Nigerian and Pakistani students see gender roles as more defined than Dutch and German students.

Iftikhar Hassan of Pakistan’s National Institute of Psychology explains the traditional status of women in his country: “She knows that the birth of a girl did not please her parents, and she cannot complain about not being sent to school, since she won’t have to work. She is taught to be patient, self-sacrificing, and obedient… If her marriage fails, she is blamed. If one of her children fails in life, she is considered the main reason. And in the rare cases when she divorces—on her own initiative or her husband’s—her chances of remarrying are extremely low, as Pakistani culture is very harsh toward divorced women” (Hassan, 1980).

Among nomadic peoples focused on survival, boys and girls are raised similarly, and men and women do almost the same work. In agricultural societies, gender roles are more defined: women work in the fields and raise children, while men lead a freer lifestyle (Segall et al., 1990; Van Leuwen, 1978). In industrial societies, the difference is huge. In Japan and Germany, there are 10 times more male managers than female; in Austria and the USA, twice as many (ILO, 1997; Wallace, 2000). In North America, most doctors and dentists are men; in Russia, most doctors, and in Denmark, most dentists are women.

The great truth about the power of social influence, if considered without the complementary truth about the power of the individual, is only a half-truth. There are at least three reasons for the interaction between individuals and situations. First, people interpret situations differently and therefore react differently. Second, people choose many of the situations that influence them. Third, people help create their own social situations. So, both situations and people have power. We are both creators and creations of our social worlds.