Francesco D'Orazio discusses the evolution of social influence in the context of social media, referencing Herbert Kelman's theories and Asch's conformity experiments. The document explores how social media alters the dynamics of influence, transitioning from a structure focused on individual compliance to one where individuals can influence many, highlighting concepts such as domain-specific influencers and the role of credibility, trust, and engagement. It emphasizes the importance of understanding audiences through shared passions rather than demographics.

1. Understanding
influence in
social media
Francesco D’Orazio, Research Director, Face, @abc3d
AQR, London, 5 September 2011
© 2010 Thomas Doyle

2. In 1958 Herbert Kelman identified three
broad varieties of social influence:"
compliance appear to agree with others, but
actually keep dissenting opinions private "
identification influenced by someone who is
liked and respected "
internalization accept a belief or behavior and
agree both publicly and privately
© 2010 Thomas Doyle

3. Our need to be right
Informational social Influence"
Our need to be liked
Normative social influence
© 2010 Thomas Doyle

4. The Asch Conformity Experiments

6. The classical definition of social influence focuses
more on the the many influencing the one

7. “Social influence occurs when
an individual's thoughts,
feelings or actions are
affected by other people.”

8. unless we are confronted with an
extraordinary individual…

9. authority

10. celebrity

11. charisma

12. Now, has social media
changed the mechanics
of social influence?

13. Three types of structures
in social media:"
Pyramid > Twitter"
Circle > Facebook"
Hybrid > Blogs, Google +

14. Extended reach means
democratization of influence.
The focus moves onto the "
one(s) influencing the many
Cosmic 140 © Information Architects, Inc. 2010

15. Speed: scaling at
network level much
faster then before

16. Traceability means we can monitor
the extended influence
x

17. Traceability means we can monitor
the extended influence
NYTlabs > Project Cascade"
structures underlying sharing
activity on the web"

18. Purchasing
Social
Influence in Advocating
social media
Conforming
Polarizing the Discussion
Setting the Agenda
Generating Awareness

19. …the underlying single mechanic
being Behaviour Change
© B.J. Fogg – The Fogg Behavior Model

20. What defines an
influencer?

22. Universal influencers
do not exist

23. © 2010 Thomas Doyle
Domain-specific influencers do exist

24. Credibility: expertise,
charisma, authority in
a specific domain

25. Trust: ability to set
the agenda, trigger
discussions and
generating reactions

26. Reach: access to a
potentially wide
network of people

27. Network Quality:
2nd, 3rd, 4th level
connections

28. Timing: ability to
be in synch with
the needs of the
audience

30. Influence by volume

31. Influence by visibility

32. Influence by engagement

33. Social network analysis
shows influence networks
are built on passions and
interests, not demographics.

34. Michel Maffesoli
introduced the
idea of neo-
tribalism in post-
modern societies
in 1996

35. Social Media has
‘just’ supported
an emergent
behaviour that
was already there

36. Too often influence
networks analysis is
associated with PR and
promotions. "
But its most valuable
benefit is actually
mapping audiences by
clusters of passions and
interests

37. And where does this leave
demographics?

38. Thanks
Francesco D’Orazio, @abc3d
© 2010 Thomas Doyle