This article evaluates three models of peer group influence on opinions. Two of these models are eliminated on theoretical and empirical grounds. The surviving model is consistent with the seminal work of French (1956) on social influence processes and provides theoretical foundations for the convention of measuring interpersonal effects with the mean opinion of an individual's set of peers. The model clearly points out the danger of reifying the mean of peers' opinions. Whether or not there is a group norm, the mean of peers' opinions must be viewed strictly as an analytical construction that may be employed to estimate the magnitude of pressures toward uniformity in a peer group.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, K. L.
, B. K. Eckland, and L. J. Griffin. 1975. “The Wisconsin Model of Socioeconomic Achievement: A Replication.”American Journal of Sociology81:324-342.
2.
Anselin, L.
1988. Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic.
3.
Arrow, K. J.
1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.
4.
Berger, J.
, M. H. Fisek, R. Z. Norman, and M. Zelditch, Jr. 1977. Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach. New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
5.
Berger, J.
, S. J. Rosenholtz, and M. Zelditch, Jr. 1980. “Status Organizing Processes.”Annual Review of Sociology6:479-508.
6.
Bidwell, C. E.
and N. E. Friedkin. 1988. “Sociology of Education.” Pp. 449-471 in Handbook of Sociology, edited by N. J. Smelser. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Burt, R. S.
1982. Toward a Structural Theory of Action. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Cartwright, D.1971. “Risk Taking by Individuals and Groups: An Assessment of Research Employing Choice Dilemmas.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology20:361-378.
9.
DeGroot, M. H.1974. “Reaching a Consensus.”Journal of the American Statistical Association69:118-121.
10.
Erbring, L.
and A. A. Young. 1979. “Individuals and Social Structure: Contextual Effects as Endogenous Feedback.”Sociological Methods and Research7:396-430.
11.
Festinger, L.
1953. “An Analysis of Compliant Behavior.” Pp. 232-256 in Group Relations at the Crossroads, edited by M. Sherif and M. O. Wilson. New York: Harper.
12.
French, J.R.P., Jr.1956. “A Formal Theory of Social Power.”Psychological Review63:181-194.
13.
French J.R.P., Jr.
and B. Raven. 1959. “The Bases of Social Power.” Pp. 150-167 in Studies of Social Power, edited by D. Cartwright. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
14.
Friedkin, N. E.1986. “A Formal Theory of Social Power.”Journal of Mathematical Sociology12:103-126.
15.
Friedkin, N. E.
1989. SNAPS (Social Network Analysis Procedures) for GAUSS, Version 1.0. Computer software available from Aptech Systems, Inc., Kent, WA.
16.
Friedkin, N. E.
and E. C. Johnsen. Forthcoming. “Social Influence and Opinions.”Journal of Mathematical Sociology.
17.
Haller, A. O.
and J. Woelfel. 1972. “Significant Others and Their Expectations: Concepts and Instruments to Measure Interpersonal Influence on Status Aspirations.”Rural Sociology37:591-622.
18.
Harary, F.
1959. “Criterion for Unanimity in French's Theory of Social Power.” Pp. 168-182 in Studies in Social Power, edited by D. Cartwright. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Social Research.
19.
Hubbell, C. H.1965. “An Input-Output Approach to Clique Identification.”Sociometry28: 377-399.
20.
Isenberg, D. J.1986. “Polarization: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50:1141-1151.
21.
Katz, L.1953. “New Status Index Derived from Sociometric Analysis.”Psychometrika18: 39-43.
22.
Lewin, K.
1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.
23.
Sen, A.
1986. “Social Choice Theory.” Pp. 1073-1081 in Handbook of Mathematical Economics. Vol. 3, edited by K. J. Arrow and M. D. Intriligator. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
24.
Sewell, W. H.
and R. M. Hauser. 1975. Education, Occupation, and Earnings: Achievement in the Early Career. New York: Academic Press.
25.
Spenner, K. I.
and D. L. Featherman. 1978. “Achievement Ambitions.”Annual Review of Sociology4:373-420.
