Communicative Influence in
Groups: A Review and
Critique of Theoretical
Perspectives and Models
Renee A. Meyers, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
David R. Seibold, University of California, Santa Barbara
Mirit D. Shoham, University of California, Santa Barbara
Overview



Approach to Group Influence
Relevant Influence Traditions
Group Influence Framework and Review






Functional Theory and Influence
Symbolic Convergence Theory and Influence
Socio-Egocentric Model and Influence
Structurational Theory and Influence
Conclusion and Further Thoughts
Questions and Discussion
Approach and Relevant
Traditions
Approach to Group Influence

Focus on communicative influence in groups:
instrumental goal attainment and related individual,
subgroup, and system effects,
 that are constituted in verbal exchanges among
group members,
 who interact face-to-face or can readily do so.

Relevant Influence Traditions

Social influence foundations:




Asch on conformity processes/yielding to majority
Zajonc’s social facilitation perspective
French & Raven’s bases of social power
Perspectives from other disciplines not fully integrated
into Communication studies of group influence:




Jackson’s Social Forces Model of Influence
Zander’s Theory of Goal Selection
Zanna’s and others’ collective action/individual reactions
extension of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Bales’ SYMLOG
Relevant Influence Traditions

Group communication perspectives not focused on influence:



Fisher & Hawes’ Interact System Model
Salazar’s Mediational Perspective on group decision making
Putnam & Stohl’s Bona Fide Groups Framework
Relevant Influence Traditions

Communication studies of groups shaped by use of influence-related
perspectives from other disciplines:
 Price & Cappella’s use of Deutsch & Gerard’s perspective for
work on informational/normative influence in discussions
 Boster’s reliance on Social Comparison Theory
 Alderton & Frey’s use of Moscovici’s minority influence
 Hollingshead’s tests of McGrath’s Time, Interaction,
Performance (TIP) Model
 Wittenbaum’s research invoking Wegner’s Transactive
Memory Perspective
 Propp’s integration into her own work of Stasser’s
information distribution and distillation group research
Group Influence Framework
and Review
Group Influence Framework

Structure review of group influence around two
tensions:
Is source of influence the individual/agency or
institutional structures, or both?
 Are effects of influence intentional or unintentional,
or both?


Caveat: This is only one lens for analysis, and an
imperfect one. Open for debate and discussion.
Framework
Types of Influence Effects
Source of
Influence Goals
Agency
Structural Factors
Intentional
Unintentional
Functional Theory

Five communicative functions
Understanding of problem
 Recognizing criteria for acceptable solution
 Generating a range of solutions
 Assessing the positive consequences
 Assessing the negative consequences


Research findings generally supportive
Functional Theory and Influence

How group members produce (or fail to
produce) these five functions significantly
influences final outcomes
Individuals/groups have agency to influence goals
through communication related to five functions;
 Influence effects in group decision-making are
generally intentional in nature


Group members are capable of influencing each other
and the final outcome, and do so intentionally (are aware
and motivated to do so)
Framework
Types of Influence Effects
Source of
Influence Goals
Intentional
Agency
Functional Theory
Structural Factors
Unintentional
Symbolic Convergence Theory


Investigates how groups create a shared
consciousness that binds members together as a
cohesive unit
Groups develop symbolic convergence through
the sharing of fantasies
Fantasies are shared interpretations of events that
fulfill a psychological or rhetorical need
 These fantasies guide and influence the group’s
outlook, identity, and actions

Symbolic Convergence Theory
and Influence

Individuals have agency to produce the group
fantasies that serve to influence group actions


Members produce messages, stories, jokes, imagined
futures, analogies
The effects of these influence attempts are
often unintentional and unplanned

Not always clear which fantasies the group will
select, and often unclear how the fantasy will
influence the group
Framework
Types of Influence Effects
Source of Influence Intentional
Goals
Agency
Structural Factors
Functional Theory
Unintentional
Symbolic
Convergence
Theory
Socio-Egocentric Model

Little evidence that influence has an impact
Identifiable non-interactive factors can explain
observed patterns
 Non-interactive inputs produce decision outputs
 Groups are sets of individuals
 Members’ interaction is governed by larger macrostructures

Turn-taking rules
 Norms (rules about vacuous comments)

S-E Model and Influence



Source of influence are non-interactive input
factors—broader institutional structures
determine interaction patterns and influence
Influence effects are largely unintentional in
nature
Alternative model of influence proposed by
Hewes’ (individual-to-individual, act-to-act
dependencies) posits both individual agency and
intentional effects
Framework
Types of Influence Effects
Source of Influence Intentional
Goals
Agency
Structural Factors
Functional Theory
Unintentional
Symbolic
Convergence
Theory
Socio-Egocentric
Model
Structuration Theory

Much work on group influence focuses on
argument
Argument is system (observed patterns of
interaction)
 Argument is structure (unobservable generative rules
and resources that enable argument)
 Argument is both medium and outcome of group
interaction


Research has investigated patterns of group argument, tagteam argument, developed model of group argument,
investigated argument in f2f and computer-mediated
Structuration Theory and Influence


Theoretically, structuration accounts for both
tensions (individual/group agency versus
institutional structure; intentional and
unintentional outcomes)
Practically, most work has focused on:
Individual/group agency
 Intentional outcomes


Some recent work on Adaptive Structuration
Theory looks at implication of structures and
impact on outcomes
Framework
Types of Influence Effects
Source of
Influence Goals
Intentional
Unintentional
Functional Theory
Symbolic
Convergence
Theory
Agency
Structuration Theory
Structural Factors
Structuration Theory
Socio-Egocentric
Model
Conclusions
Conclusions

Potential contributions:
Focus on communicative influence in groups
 Survey of 4 relevant influence traditions
 Influence in 4 prominent group comm perspectives
 Framework: source of goals x type of effect


Critiques of 4 group comm perspectives

Functional Theory: extend to natural groups; reduce
conceptual ambiguities/operational disparities;
assumption re:availability of relevant/accurate data;
additional functions that need to be incorporated;
uncover constraints
Conclusions

Critiques of 4 group comm perspectives (con’t)
 Symbolic Convergence Theory: theoretical
scope/empirical generalizability?; propositions
re:intersubjective processes?; tests of theory?
 Socio-Egocentric Model: limited to individual-toindividual influence; act-to-act contingencies as
underlying unit of analysis for assessing influence
 Structuration Theory: over-attention to
processes/emergence of structures; predictive
potential not fully exploited; empirical
demonstration of recursivity of action<->structure
Conclusions

Relationship with majority/minority influence theories
(Martin & Hewstone, 2007)
Main-Effects Models:
 Conversion Theory (Moscovici, 1980, 1985)
 Convergent-Divergent Theory (Nemeth, 1986)
 Social-Impact Theory (Latane, 1981, 1996)
 Objective-Consensus Approach (Mackie, 1987; DeVries et al. 1996)
Contingency Approaches:
 Conflict-Elaboration Theory (Perez & Mugny , 1996)
 Context/Comparison Model (Crano & Alvaro, 1998)
 Self-Categorization Theory (David & Turner, 1996)