The Psychology of Influence

Abstract

Influence is a fundamental process in psychology, shaping persuasion, conformity, obedience, and identity development. Classic studies on conformity (Asch, 1956), obedience (Milgram, 1963), and minority influence (Moscovici, 1980) laid the groundwork for understanding how individuals align with or resist social pressures. Contemporary research extends these insights, showing that influence operates through both cognitive and affective mechanisms, including heuristic versus systematic processing (Petty et al., 2019), emotional appeals such as awe and fear (Nabi & Myrick, 2019), and susceptibility under cognitive load (Chen et al., 2021). Social dynamics also play a critical role: normative pressures, digital validation cues, and group identification processes amplify influence in both face-to-face and online contexts (Reiner et al., 2020; Stallen et al., 2021). Cultural frameworks further moderate influence, as collectivist orientations and cultural tightness–looseness shape responses to authority, conformity, and persuasion (Li et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021). Applications of influence extend across domains, from health interventions and workplace leadership to education and digital communication, yet ethical concerns remain regarding autonomy and manipulation in technologically mediated persuasion (Susser et al., 2019). This review synthesises theoretical, empirical, and applied perspectives, highlighting influence as both adaptive and potentially harmful. By examining mechanisms, contexts, and limitations, it underscores the need for culturally sensitive, ethically grounded, and interdisciplinary approaches to influence in contemporary psychology. The following review expands on these dynamics, situating classical foundations alongside recent advances in cognitive, affective, social, and digital contexts.

Keywords: Influence; persuasion; conformity; compliance; authority; and social cognition

Influence is a central construct in psychology, underpinning processes as diverse as persuasion, conformity, obedience, and identity formation. According to Cialdini (2021), influence functions through core principles such as reciprocity, authority, and social proof, which remain foundational in explaining how individuals respond to persuasive appeals. Yet as Haslam et al. (2020) argue, influence is not simply a matter of external pressure but emerges through social identity processes, whereby group membership and shared norms shape the effectiveness of persuasion. This perspective highlights the inherently social nature of influence and its role in coordinating collective behaviour. Historically, classic experiments on conformity (Asch, 1956), obedience (Milgram, 1963), and minority influence (Moscovici, 1980) established the empirical and theoretical foundations of the field. These studies revealed both the adaptive and potentially dangerous dimensions of influence: it sustains social cohesion but can also facilitate harmful compliance. More recent evidence extends these insights into contemporary contexts, showing that digital platforms amplify social validation mechanisms such as likes, shares, and algorithmic nudges, which function as powerful cues of social proof (Reiner et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2022). Having outlined the historical and conceptual significance of influence, the next section reviews empirical findings across cognitive, affective, social, and cultural domains, highlighting both continuity with classical models and innovations in contemporary research.

Review of the Literature

Conceptual Foundations

According to Cialdini (2021), persuasion rests on foundational principles such as reciprocity, authority, and social proof, which continue to anchor contemporary influence research. Building on this, Haslam et al. (2020) assert that influence is not merely an individual cognitive process but is mediated through social identity, with group membership and shared norms significantly shaping the effectiveness of persuasion. Complementing these perspectives, Moscovici’s (1980) seminal work on minority influence remains crucial for understanding how small but consistent groups can gradually shift majority attitudes, highlighting that influence can operate in both top-down and bottom-up directions. More recently, Van Bavel et al. (2020) emphasise the role of identity-driven processes in online environments, showing how social proof and group polarisation are amplified by digital platforms. Similarly, Berger (2021) adds that influence dynamics are increasingly shaped by network effects, where virality depends not only on message content but also on structural properties of social networks. Together, these insights reinforce that the conceptual foundations of influence are robust across time, but their applications must be understood within contemporary social and technological contexts. These foundations establish the basis upon which more detailed mechanisms of influence can be understood, particularly the cognitive and affective processes that regulate persuasion.

Cognitive and Affective Mechanisms

Chaiken and Trope’s heuristic–systematic model provided an early framework for understanding how individuals rely on mental shortcuts versus deeper processing when evaluating persuasive messages. Building on this foundation, Petty et al. (2019) confirm that dual-process models, such as the elaboration likelihood model, remain central to explaining why some messages succeed under low elaboration conditions—when individuals depend on heuristics—while others are effective only when high elaboration prompts systematic processing. Extending beyond cognition, Nabi and Myrick (2019) highlight the affective dimension of persuasion, noting that discrete emotions such as awe and fear exert powerful mediating effects on influence outcomes, shaping both attention and recall.

According to Chen et al. (2021), cognitive load further complicates this dynamic by reducing an individual’s ability to engage in systematic scrutiny, thereby lowering resistance to persuasion and increasing reliance on peripheral cues. Complementing this, Xu and Wyer (2020) demonstrate that emotional arousal can bias which processing route dominates, with heightened arousal amplifying heuristic reliance even in contexts where information quality is high. More recently, Lench et al. (2022) argue that emotions not only intensify persuasion but also act as meta-cognitive signals, guiding individuals about the reliability of their judgments. Taken together, these findings underscore that persuasion is rarely the product of reason alone: it is shaped by the interaction of cognitive capacity, emotional state, and contextual demands, confirming that both affective and cognitive mechanisms are integral to understanding influence. While individual cognition and emotion play a critical role, influence also unfolds in collective settings, where conformity, authority, and compliance shape behaviour.

Social Influence and Conformity

Classic studies by Asch (1955) remain central to understanding social influence, demonstrating how individuals often conform to group consensus even when it contradicts their own perceptions. More recent work, however, has reframed conformity not merely as blind compliance but as an adaptive strategy. Claidière and Whiten (2019) argue that conformity functions as an evolutionary mechanism, enabling individuals to align with group norms under conditions of uncertainty, thereby increasing chances of accuracy and social cohesion. Extending this perspective into contemporary contexts, Reiner et al. (2020) assert that digital platforms amplify normative influence, with visible markers such as likes, shares, and follower counts serving as potent forms of social validation. These online metrics not only reinforce conformity but also accelerate the diffusion of norms and misinformation alike. At the neural level, Stallen et al. (2021) provide evidence that conformity engages reward circuitry, particularly striatal and medial prefrontal regions, suggesting that social approval itself is biologically encoded as rewarding. This convergence of behavioral, cultural, and neural data underscores that conformity is not a static phenomenon; rather, it is dynamically shaped by context, technology, and intrinsic reward systems that make social alignment both psychologically and biologically compelling. Just as conformity highlights collective alignment, the study of authority and obedience reveals how hierarchical dynamics shape individual decisions in the face of power.

Authority and Obedience

Milgram’s (1963) classic studies on obedience remain foundational, illustrating the extent to which individuals comply with authority directives even when such actions conflict with personal conscience. While often critiqued for ethical concerns, the paradigm continues to inform contemporary discussions of hierarchical influence. Blass (2019) argues that Milgram’s findings retain their relevance in modern organisational and political contexts, where obedience to authority persists as a central feature of institutional functioning. More recently, Burger et al. (2020) conducted partial replications and confirmed that high levels of obedience still occur, though outcomes are moderated by cultural and situational norms, such as collectivist versus individualist orientations. Importantly, contemporary theorists have moved beyond the notion of “blind obedience.” Reicher et al. (2020) propose that compliance is better understood through the lens of social identity theory: individuals obey authority figures not merely out of submission but because they identify with the leader and the group they represent. This reconceptualisation reframes obedience as an active, identity-driven process, highlighting how group alignment and legitimacy perceptions shape the boundaries of authority’s power. While authority reflects the vertical dimensions of influence, compliance and persuasion techniques capture the horisontal strategies that permeate everyday interactions.

Compliance and Persuasion Techniques

Research on compliance techniques continues to demonstrate their robustness across cultural contexts. Dolinski (2020) shows that classic strategies such as the foot-in-the-door (securing small initial compliance before escalating to a larger request) and door-in-the-face (rejecting a large request before presenting a smaller, more reasonable one) remain highly effective in diverse populations, underscoring their cross-cultural generalisability. Expanding on this, Guadagno and Cialdini (2021) argue that compliance is not merely about technique but is deeply contingent on situational framing and interpersonal trust. Their findings suggest that the credibility of the requester and the relational context significantly moderate the success of compliance attempts. More recently, digital environments have introduced novel mechanisms of influence. Xu et al. (2022) identify “digital nudges,” such as default settings, pre-checked options, and subtle interface cues, as increasingly powerful compliance tools. Unlike traditional persuasion techniques that rely on overt requests, digital nudges operate by structuring the choice architecture in ways that guide decisions automatically. Together, these findings demonstrate that while long-established compliance strategies remain effective, the rise of digital platforms has expanded the toolkit of persuasion, embedding influence into the very design of decision environments. At the same time, motivational and identity factors reveal why individuals embrace or resist influence, depending on whether it aligns with their sense of self.

Motivation and Identity in Influence

Motivation and identity processes are central to understanding when and how influence succeeds. According to Ryan and Deci (2020), susceptibility to persuasion depends on the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: when behaviors are internally endorsed and aligned with personal values, individuals are more likely to integrate influence into lasting change, whereas externally imposed pressures often produce only short-term compliance. Extending this perspective, Oyserman et al. (2021) demonstrate that self-concept framing significantly shapes influence outcomes. Their research shows that when identity is primed—whether through cultural, social, or personal salience—individuals become more susceptible to persuasive appeals that appear consistent with that activated identity. At the same time, influence can backfire if it is perceived as a threat to autonomy. Hornsey et al. (2020) argue that psychological reactance, the defensive response triggered when freedom of choice feels constrained, undermines compliance and may even strengthen resistance. Collectively, this evidence underscores that influence is not a one-directional process but is filtered through motivational dynamics and identity frameworks that can either facilitate or block its effectiveness. These motivational dynamics increasingly intersect with digital platforms, where influence spreads rapidly through emotional contagion and algorithmic curation.

Influence in Digital Media

According to Vosoughi et al. (2020), misinformation spreads faster than factual information online due to the emotional contagion of novel or alarming content. Del Vicario et al. (2021) add that echo chambers intensify these effects by limiting exposure to counter-arguments and reinforcing pre-existing beliefs, thereby narrowing the space for critical reflection. Complementing this, Brady et al. (2021) demonstrate that moral-emotional language in tweets strongly predicts virality, showing that outrage and moral framing act as accelerants of influence in digital spaces. Together, these findings reveal that traditional mechanisms of influence—such as emotional appeals and social validation—are not only preserved but magnified within online ecosystems, where speed, scale, and algorithmic design amplify their impact. While digital contexts illustrate the reach of influence, cultural and contextual differences reveal how its impact varies across societies and value systems.

Cultural and Contextual Differences

Cultural frameworks significantly shape the dynamics of influence. Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) seminal model of individualism and collectivism continues to inform contemporary research, showing that collectivist cultures place greater emphasis on conformity and group cohesion, while individualist cultures privilege autonomy and self-expression. Li et al. (2020) confirm this distinction, demonstrating that individuals in collectivist contexts are more likely to conform to majority opinion in group decision-making tasks. Similarly, Smith et al. (2021) argue that cultural tightness–looseness—defined as the strength of social norms and tolerance for deviance—moderates susceptibility to authority and conformity, with tighter cultures producing higher compliance rates.

More recently, Park et al. (2022) highlight that globalisation has created hybrid influence dynamics, blending East–West norms and reshaping persuasive strategies in multicultural environments. These findings affirm that influence cannot be universally defined; rather, it is embedded within socio-cultural contexts that determine how authority, persuasion, and conformity are enacted. Recognising these cultural differences is crucial for applying influence research in practical domains, from health and education to leadership and digital interventions.

Applications of Influence

Influence processes extend beyond theory into applied contexts that affect daily life. In health psychology, Perski et al. (2021) demonstrate that persuasive mobile applications can foster positive behaviour change when they employ personalisation, goal setting, and reinforcement techniques. In organisational contexts, Gardner et al. (2020) assert that effective leadership is rooted not in positional authority alone but in influence derived from identity alignment and trust, emphasising the importance of shared values in cultivating commitment. Similarly, in educational settings, Wentzel (2020) finds that teacher influence enhances student motivation and engagement when it emphasises autonomy support rather than control. These examples illustrate that influence, when applied ethically, has broad potential to improve well-being, productivity, and learning. Yet alongside these benefits, the literature also identifies objections and limitations that caution against oversimplifying or overextending the reach of influence research.

Objections and Limitations

Despite its breadth, influence research faces several limitations. According to Brehm’s psychological reactance theory, persuasion attempts can backfire, producing resistance when individuals perceive threats to their autonomy (Dillard & Shen, 2020). Some scholars have further critiqued digital influence, arguing that online platforms exploit heuristics and cognitive shortcuts in ways that undermine autonomy and informed choice (Susser et al., 2019). Nisbett (2021) also contends that much of influence research is Western-centric, limiting its generalisability across cultural contexts and potentially reinforcing ethnocentric assumptions about human behaviour. These objections highlight the need for methodological diversification, ethical safeguards, and cross-cultural validation to ensure that influence research both reflects and respects the diversity of human psychology. Addressing these critiques requires a reflective integration of theory, application, and ethics, which brings us to the broader implications discussed below.

Discussion

The reviewed literature demonstrates that influence is a multidimensional construct, operating at the intersection of cognition, emotion, identity, and culture. Classic principles of persuasion and compliance (Cialdini, 2021) remain relevant, but they interact dynamically with motivational processes (Ryan & Deci, 2020), social validation in digital spaces (Reiner et al., 2020), and cultural frameworks of authority and conformity (Li et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2021). A consistent theme is that influence succeeds most effectively when it aligns with individuals’ self-concepts, group identities, and cultural values, reinforcing that persuasion is rarely imposed but negotiated within social meaning systems. At the mechanistic level, dual-process models and affective research confirm that susceptibility depends not only on information quality but also on emotional resonance and cognitive capacity (Petty et al., 2019; Nabi & Myrick, 2019; Chen et al., 2021). Neuroscientific evidence further emphasises that conformity and approval activate reward pathways, showing that influence is biologically reinforced as adaptive for group cohesion (Stallen et al., 2021). These findings affirm that influence is not merely psychological but embodied, underscoring its evolutionary and social utility.

However, the digital era has complicated these dynamics. The amplification of moral-emotional language and misinformation (Vosoughi et al., 2020; Brady et al., 2021) reveals both the power and danger of technologically mediated influence. At the same time, ethical concerns over autonomy and manipulation highlight that influence is not value-neutral (Susser et al., 2019). This tension between adaptive function and ethical risk underscores the importance of applying influence frameworks responsibly across domains. Ultimately, the discussion illustrates that while influence is a powerful force shaping thought and behavior, its outcomes depend on context. The challenge for psychology is to refine theories that account for cultural diversity, digital transformation, and the need for autonomy-supportive influence strategies, ensuring both theoretical advancement and social responsibility.

Conclusion

This review affirms that influence is a central construct in psychology, bridging classic theories of persuasion, conformity, and obedience with contemporary research on digital media, identity, and culture. At its core, influence is shaped by enduring principles such as reciprocity, authority, and social proof (Cialdini, 2021), but its expression evolves across contexts, from classrooms and workplaces to online platforms. On one hand, influence facilitates cooperation, cohesion, and positive behaviour change in health, education, and leadership (Wentzel, 2020; Gardner et al., 2020; Perski et al., 2021). On the other, it carries risks of manipulation, reactance, and reduced autonomy, particularly in digital environments that exploit heuristics and amplify polarisation (Dillard & Shen, 2020; Susser et al., 2019). The central insight is that influence is neither inherently beneficial nor harmful, but contextually dependent. Its success rests on alignment between external persuasion and individuals’ motivational states, identities, and cultural frameworks. Moving forward, psychology must prioritise integrative and cross-cultural approaches, ensuring that influence research accounts for global diversity and ethical safeguards. Influence is most constructive when it empowers rather than coerces, supports autonomy rather than undermines it, and promotes flourishing rather than exploitation. By adopting this nuanced perspective, scholars and practitioners can harness the power of influence in ways that are adaptive, ethical, and socially responsible.

References

Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31

Berger, J. (2021). The catalyst: How to change anyone’s mind. Simon & Schuster.

Blass, T. (2019). Revisiting Milgram’s obedience experiments: Modern relevance and new insights. American Psychologist, 74(6), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000410

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(51), e2105155118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105155118

Burger, J. M., Girgis, Z. M., & Manning, C. M. (2020). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(5), 605–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619887702

Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. Guilford Press.

Chen, Z., Zhong, J., & He, J. (2021). Cognitive load and susceptibility to persuasion: Evidence from behavioral and neurocognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(8), 1521–1533. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000980

Claidière, N., & Whiten, A. (2019). Conformity in primates: Mechanisms and functions. Psychological Science, 30(3), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618820648

Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (new & expanded ed.). Harper Business.

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2020). Resistance to persuasion: Psychological reactance as a barrier. Communication Monographs, 87(1), 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1623309

Dolinski, D. (2020). Techniques of social influence: The psychology of gaining compliance. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.001

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2020). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(6), 101495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101495

Guadagno, R. E., & Cialdini, R. B. (2021). Persuasion and compliance: Social influence in digital and face-to-face contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051002

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2020). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power(2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432483

Hornsey, M. J., Barlow, F. K., & Vanman, E. J. (2020). The psychology of reactance: Why we fight back against attempts to influence us. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(3), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320921162

Li, Y., Yamaguchi, S., & Kashima, Y. (2020). Culture and conformity: Collectivist orientations amplify social influence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 51(4), 315–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022120910937

Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60133-1

Nabi, R. L., & Myrick, J. G. (2019). Uplifting fear appeals: Considering the role of hope in fear-based persuasive messages. Health Communication, 34(4), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1422847

Nisbett, R. E. (2021). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition revisited. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620958906

Oyserman, D., Novin, S., Flinkenflogel, N., & Krabbendam, L. (2021). Self-concept and motivation: How identity-based motivation works. Motivation Science, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000201

Perski, O., Short, C. E., & West, R. (2021). Persuasive technology for health: A review of smartphone apps that influence behavior. Health Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2019.1655895

Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2019). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: Evidence from the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.03.004

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Miller, A. G. (2020). What makes a person a perpetrator? The psychological re-interpretation of obedience. European Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1801121

Reiner, P. B., Danaher, J., & Scherer, M. U. (2020). Behavioral influence in the age of digital platforms. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0826-1

Smith, P. B., Vignoles, V. L., & Becker, M. (2021). Cultural tightness-looseness and its effects on social influence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.12.004

Stallen, M., Smidts, A., & Sanfey, A. G. (2021). Conformity and the brain: A review of reward-related mechanisms. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 16(6), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsab019

Susser, D., Roessler, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (2019). Online manipulation: Hidden influences in a digital world. Georgetown Law Technology Review, 4(2), 1–45.

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2020). The spread of true and false news online. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06292-0

Wentzel, K. R. (2020). Teacher-student relationships and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000368

Xu, A. J., & Wyer, R. S. (2020). The role of affect in persuasion: When emotions influence attitudes under high elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 30(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1131

Xu, H., Chen, Y., & Santhanam, R. (2022). The psychology of digital nudges: Choice architecture in online environments. MIS Quarterly, 46(1), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2022/16620