Cited by 84Opinion Dynamics and Social InfluencePsychology of Social InfluenceSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The burden of social proof: Shared thresholds and social influence

Open access
MacCoun, Robert J.·2012·Psychological Review

Abstract

Social influence rises with the number of influence sources, but the proposed relationship varies across theories, situations, and research paradigms. To clarify this relationship, I argue that people share some sense of where the "burden of social proof" lies in situations where opinions or choices are in conflict. This suggests a family of models sharing 2 key parameters, one corresponding to the location of the influence threshold, and the other reflecting its clarity--a factor that explains why discrete "tipping points" are not observed more frequently. The plausibility and implications of this account are examined using Monte Carlo and cellular automata simulations and the relative fit of competing models across classic data sets in the conformity, group deliberation, and social diffusion literatures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0027121

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The asymptotic relation between group size and social contagion can be explained by dynamic regulation of the response threshold.

    “While this has typically been explained in terms of social cognitive processes (Bond, 2005;Latane, 1981;MacCoun, 2012), it can also be explained by dynamic regulation of the response threshold (Cracco & Brass, 2018d).”

    From Automatic imitation of multiple agents: A computational model (2019) · cites this paper as MacCoun, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 177 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacCoun, R. J.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
MacCoun, Robert J.
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2012
Volume
119
Issue
2
Pages
345-372
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W3124381137
Cited by
84
References
177
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4
FWCI
3.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
social influence, social validation, tipping points, conformity, collective deliberation, social diffusion
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Helping Behavior, Humans, Imitative Behavior, Leadership, Mass Behavior, Models, Theoretical, Psychology, Social, Social Behavior, Social Change, Social Conformity, Consensus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review