Chapter 2: The Principles of Influence Indicators

The micro level is informed primarily by the insights of cognitive and social psychological science. As a behavioural science, psychology is guided by the principles of operationalisation. Operationalisation, in psychology, is the process of defining the measurement of constructs that are theorised to exist but which are not directly observable per se. Operationalisation begins, however, with explicit conceptualization of how one discrete construct is different to another and clear theoretical propositions about how (for instance) changes in one construct may lead to changes in another.

Our approach to ‘indicators’ is therefore informed by the theorising and conceptualising the ideas that were articulated in the companion report (West, et.al., 2023) and in what follows below, the primary insight appears before recommendations about indicators.

As anticipated in Figure 1 (see p. 8), there are also any number of ways that such concepts may be inferred or directly measured/observed. Measurement within the psychological and social sciences is often based on self-report: people reporting (either via means of a survey, questionnaire or interview) whether a given construct aligns with how they see themselves or the world. However, other analyses may be inferential, drawing conclusions about a person, group or communities proclivities based on, for example, their behaviours or language use.

An important caveat of operationalisation is that the principles and approach must be carried out in a way that is sensitive to the context of the specific “problem” and, ideally, with the perspective of the human perceiver in mind. That is, more reliable measures will also be those that are sensitive to the alignment between the measures or indicator, but also the context in which those apply (from the perspective of the human who is encountering or experiencing the phenomena in question).

How people think about information: Need for mastery

People all have a fundamental need for mastery, that is, the capacity to understand, make sense of, and predict their environment. This broader need for mastery has an individual differences component, that is, people differ in the degree to which they are motivated to be masters of the environment, reduce uncertainty and/or enjoy effortful information processing.

People who inherently enjoy more effortful cognitive activities will be more motivated to deeply engage with messages while people who adopt more intuitive “gut-feel” modes of cognition will be more influenced by heuristics.

Several different explicit scales exist that assess how people approach problem-solving. For instance, the Need for Cognition scale (e.g., Lord & Putrevu, 2006; following Cacioppo et al., 1984) measures the degree to which a person engages in and enjoys thinking. It assesses attitudinal agreement with items like “I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems”; “I usually end up deliberating about issues even when they do not affect me personally”. A related indicator is of uncertainty orientation, that is, people who are highly motivated to resolve uncertainty about themselves, their environments, or the consequences of their thoughts and behaviours (e.g., Shuper et al., 2004). Considerable research now shows that people who are high in intuitive thinking and low in analytical thinking are more likely to believe misinformation. Individuals and/or groups who agree strongly with items like “I am not very good at problems that require careful logical analysis” or “reasoning things out carefully is not one of my strong points” show evidence of intuitive thinking (based on the Relational Experiential Inventory; see McGuiness et al., 2017).

By way of more observed (ethnographic or behavioural) indicators, people will “social reality test”, that is, test their ideas against those of others, especially during times of uncertainty and when motivated to meet mastery needs. Social reality testing occurs when people test their views about (non-objective) aspects of the social context by talking to other people and seeing whether their opinion accords with others. 16

A salient mastery need can also be observed where people are interacting together to seek and share information (even if that information is not accurate). The greater number or volume of such interactions indicates the salience of the mastery need at the community and/or population level. The volume of interactions on a given topic reflects the drive to arrive at a collectively shared understanding. The implications of such an understanding – whether it supports or impedes public order – will hinge on other factors, as described below.

The role of threat: Salience of the mastery need

Some situations also make the need for mastery more salient, than others. Disasters, emergencies and existential threats (real or perceived) heighten the salience of the mastery need.

Emergencies or threats can be both objective (directly observable) and also be perceived or subjective (in the eye of the beholder). An overt and directly observable emergency would be reflected in an official state of emergency relating to fire, flood, hurricane, or other natural or human-caused event.

Threats can also be subjective and perceived by some individuals, groups or communities but not others. In these cases, one indicator might be explicit (self-reported) threat from a given situation. Measures of realistic and symbolic threats assess the degree to which (for instance) a given group threats the economic or material opportunities (realistic threat) and/or the status of one’s own group (symbolic threat; see Stephan & Stephan, 2000; Stephan et al., 2009).

An ethnographic or observed indicator may relate to language use: are there high levels of threat language (see Smith, McGarty & Thomas, 2018) evident in the online interactions of particular people, groups or communities? For instance, Smith et al. (2018) showed that use of words like “harm”, “risk”, “threat” denoted threat in the context of refugees. These could be assessed using topic modelling of online communities, digital media or other open-source information.

Time (or not) to engage: Information processing

The micro, meso and macro-level mechanics of influence can differ based on the means of communication, the situation, or the context. Contexts that offer the opportunity for deep engagement will tend to be associated with central processing and will therefore need to present high-quality arguments to be successful. Contexts or media that do not allow time for effortful processing will be associated with peripheral processing, in which case heuristics (short cuts) will be more influential than complex, detailed argumentation.

How much time does the recipient of the influence have to engage deeply/meaningfully with the ostensibly ‘influential’ message? This factor can be both objective (i.e., how much time was a specific message available to the recipient) but also have a subjective dimension (did the recipient feel or believe that they had sufficient time to engage deeply?).

Objective measures would look at the medium of communication and examine whether the message is presented for a long/short duration, as well as consider the array of other information that may be co-present.

Measures of self-reported capacity to engage deeply versus superficially could be drawn from De Dreu (2003): (1) did you feel you had sufficient time to engage with [this information], (2) did you feel to be under pressure while reading [this information], and (3) was time left an issue of concern for you as you read/heard about [this information].

How group memberships structure influence: Social identification

People have a fundamental need to belong, that is, a need to have and maintain relationships with other people and groups. This need to belong is often expressed via commitment to groups, that is, social identification.

In some situations, group memberships (“we and us”) can become the lens through which we perceive the world and our interactions in it. Under these circumstances, social identities (group memberships) are far more important to understanding collective behaviour than personality or idiosyncratic attributes4.

There are many validated measures of social identification that can be used to explicitly assess the degree to which a given group (occupational, political, community, tribe, or nation) is subjectively important to how a person sees themselves. A single item has also been shown to be reliable and effective measure of social identification (Postmes et al., 2013): “I identify with [my group/category]”, followed by a 7-point scale to indicate agreement. Multi-dimensional measures of social identification assess the many facets of social identification including whether people are invested with (bonded to) the group, see the group as central to “who I am”, feel satisfied with their membership and/or perceive commonality with other group members (see Leach et al., 2008).

Social identities (group memberships) can also be inferred or observed without directly asking the perceiver. Online interactions and networks provide useful sites of information about subjectively important identities. At the linguistic level, use of collective personal pronouns (“we”, “us”) has been shown to reflect psychologically important identities (Pennebaker et al., 2003). In that situation, it is important to consider which group identity the use of collective personal pronouns refer to (i.e., who is the “we” or “us”). Some tools exist to infer group identity (Ashokkumar & Pennebaker, 2022) and in the context of specific group memberships (e.g., Koschate et al., 2021). More frequent interactions with (multiple) members of that group are also likely to indicate that the group will be more relevant than other groups.

Mapping the psychological terrain: Multiple and shared social identities

People with whom a social identity is shared are seen as more important and credible sources of reality than outgroup members. Influence indicators can aim to identify and describe the group memberships at play in each situation to map the contours and fault lines of influence.

The social world is complex; people can be committed to numerous, diverse groups in ways that shape behaviour. In the context of influence indicators, it is key to develop an understanding of the various groups and allegiances at play in a specific targeted community or group, how many groups are subjectively important (few, many), and how those (many) group memberships may be complementary or antagonistic to each other.

At the micro level, this type of analysis can be developed using the Social Identity Mapping Tool (see Cruwys et al., 2016). The Social Identity Map (SIM) is a method for having people explicitly, visually represent and assess a person’s network of subjective group memberships, as well as their interconnections. The Social Identity Map conveys information about which identities “matter” for a given person, how many groups there are, and how those various group memberships relate to one another.

For instance, membership of an occupational group (e.g., being a nurse) may be seen as more, or less, compatible with a political group that rejects vaccination (e.g., an anti-vaccination group). Aggregating these maps over people would build up a picture of the meaningful group memberships within a given community or sample, as well as tensions within them. Doing so may help to predict when the norms and values of one group (see below) could “spill over” into other groups where there are many members with common, shared multiple group memberships. This may show how groups influence each other, and thus how influence ‘works’.

Multiple and networked group memberships can also be inferred from social network analysis, that is, using observable interactions between individuals and groups. Using online and/or other observable behaviours/interactions, it is possible to build up a picture of the meaningful group memberships within a given community (clusters where people cohere), how those many groups relate/inter-relate (where there are interactions between those groups and their members), and identify central actors (people who appear to broker influence across nodes). Maps of the psychological interconnections between extremist groups, for instance, may help to understand when such groups may exploit mutual connections to foster collaboration.

Who we are: The role of group norms

Social identities are linked to group norms: informal rules that shape emotions (what “we”, that is, the group, feel), cognitions (what “we” think”), and beliefs (what “we” believe) of group members. Group norms explain why group members act in ways similar to each other but different to members of other groups. Such norms also affect who is deemed to have or lack authority and to help determine how information is processed within the group.

Group norms are the informal rules that govern “what it means” to be a member of a particular group (e.g., occupational group, nation, society). Despite its critical importance as a concept within the psychological sciences, measurement of norms has been a fraught issue (Reynolds, 2019); three considerations are key.

First, group norms can relate to values, beliefs, behaviours and/or emotions (Thomas et al., 2009). It is important to be clear about which of these one is interested in, as some may be more of a factor than others, or they may operate in combination.

Second, any measure of norms must apply to the referent group that the norms “belong” to. Asking about norms in general without specifying the group membership will yield a more dispersed measure and have been shown to be lower in predictive value (Terry & Hogg, 1996). For instance, asking about the norms of Australians will be less instructive than asking about the norms of an Australian anti-vaxx community.

Third, there is a distinction between descriptive norms – what “we” currently, concretely practice in terms of actual behaviours – and injunctive norms – what “we” should or would ideally do (see Goldstein & Cialdini, 2011; Zou & Savani, 2019). The measurement should refer to descriptive norms in order to more usefully understand current patterns in behaviour, while injunctive norms are useful gauges of what is seen to be ideal within the group.

Both types of norms are relevant for understanding how influence works. Descriptive norms may be instrumentalised to limit behaviours that are divergent, disruptive, or challenging to the status quo. Injunctive norms may be deployed to promote and legitimise a shift towards a ‘new norm’.

Norms of groups can also be inferred based on observed behaviours and an understanding of the fault lines of group memberships (see ‘social identification’ and ‘multiple and shared social identities’ above). What behaviours, aspects or features of that group differentiate them, relative to other groups? Are there any open-source records, interviews or formal statements of values, beliefs that can be used to determine what the group stands for? What are the patterns of language use in relation to, e.g., moral foundations, commonly used emotions, that distinguish members of this group use relative to members of other groups?

“True” internalised behaviour (or not): Autonomy versus control

People have a fundamental need to feel that their individual and group interactions, and decisions, are self-directed and freely chosen.

People are driven to feel that their individual and group behaviour is freely enacted without undue external constraint or coercion. Measures of autonomy can be derived from research based on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Task specific measures of autonomy relate to particular tasks or behaviours (e.g., “At work, I often feel like I have to follow other people’s commands”; see Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Cross-culturally validated trait level measures gauge the importance of the need for autonomy in the abstract (e.g., “I feel my choices express my true self”; see Chen et al., 2015).

One of the reasons it matters to foster an appearance of autonomy is people who are autonomously motivated will be more likely to enact a given set of principles, attitudes or behaviours even in private. Psychologists have long debated the distinction between public conformity (conforming to appearances sake without really agreeing) and private acceptance (deep internalised support for a stance or position).

An important implication of the distinction between autonomous versus controlled motives is that autonomously motivated behaviours will be more likely to be enacted even in private. Do people appear to be engaging in behaviours because they have a “true”, internalised belief that it is the right thing to do? Or might they be doing so because they have been constrained by other pressures (social, economic) to engage in a particular behaviour or assert a particular position? Is there a disparity between public and private statements or practices? If so, then that may indicate that the underlying motivation is not internalised partly because the autonomy need has not been satisfied.

Authority-based influence: Legitimacy of authority

People will accept and enact the vision of an authority (Turner, 2005) when that authority fosters a shared sense of identity between themselves and the group.

Authority-based influence will be more effective where that authority is seen to represent the qualities of the group, actively seek to benefit the group (versus themselves or other groups), cement the reality of the group, and deliver structures that improve the lives of group members.

Relationships between civil groups, movements and authorities are central to understanding influence5. The Identity Leadership Inventory (Steffens et al., 2014) measures four dimensions of identity leadership relevant to capturing the relationship between a group and an authority. The four items capture an extent to which a given leader or authority represents “one of us” (e.g., “this leader embodies what [the group] stands for”); promotes the interests of the group (e.g, “this leader acts as a champion for [the group]”); crafts a sense of the group and its members (e.g, “this leader creates a sense of cohesion within [the group]”); and engages in activities that benefit the group (“this leader creates structures that are useful for [the group]”). The Identity Leadership Inventory has been validated across 20 countries (Van Dick et al., 2018).

Collective language will make a leader or authority more likely to be influential. Steffens and Haslam (2013) showed that the use of collective pronouns (“we”, “us”) predicted the success of Prime Ministerial candidates in all 43 Australian elections prior to 2013. Language and behaviour of authorities or prospective leaders can be studied to identify the elements above; where those elements (from the perspective of the group or audience that they are seeking to lead), the authority will be more influential. Language Style Matching could demonstrate the degree to which there is similarity (convergence) in the language patterns/use of the authority and group members (see Askokkumar & Pennebaker, 2022).

An effective way of exerting influence is to craft a higher-order social identity between two groups but these should still incorporate meaningful recognition of the strengths and unique attributes of the sub-groups. On the other hand, coercive tactics used by an authority or leader makes salient disagreement with and difference from the source (an intergroup divide), promoting private rejection even if it elicits public conformity.

Evidence that a leader or authority is coercing group members (constraining their free will, violating need for autonomy) will violate the identity-based links between leader and follower and render them less influential.