Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Justice in Local Systems of Interpersonal Influence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality

Part of the book series: Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research ((HSSR))

Abstract

The enlargement of the public sphere of visible local events has increased the demand for social justice, which penetrates into social life as a superordinate evaluative dimension of all action. Issues of social justice are increasingly included in the domain of common objects of interest and arousal for collectivities of individuals. The evolving culture of social justice is manifested in individuals’ displayed positions on whether particular actions are justified, their definition and meaning, and what punitive or compensatory responses, if any, are called for. This chapter is focused on the social process of interpersonal influence that may alter individuals’ positions on particular issues of social justice, and the implications of interpersonal influences unfolding on social network structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Figure 10.1 appears in Harary et al. (1965), a book that many investigators in field of social networks have found valuable.

  2. 2.

    Kahneman distinguishes two systems, 1 and 2, and locates the “hard work” of logic and reasoning in System 2. A simple example of System 2 activity is a countdown by sevens from 100.

  3. 3.

    The analysis presented in Fig. 10.3 is for a one-dimensional cognitive orientation toward a specific object, which may be an evaluative position on whether justice would be served by a particular response to an S → T action. More complexly defined multi-dimensional issues also may analyzed. See Friedkin and Johnsen (2011).

References

  • Acemoglu, D., & Ozdaglar, A. (2011). Opinion dynamics and learning in social networks. Dynamic Games and Applications, 1(1), 3–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer Jr. (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 1–61). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 925–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 893–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard, C. (1968 [1938]). Functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress, C. C., & Friedkin, N. E. (2012). Cultural reception and production: The social construction of meaning in book clubs. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, C. H. (1927). Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deffuant, G., Neau, D., Amblard, F., & Weisbuch, G. (2000). Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. Advances in Complex Systems, 3(01n04), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot, M. H. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(345), 118–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experimental self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Vol. 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 159–184). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P. Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. The Psychological Review, 63(3), 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Choice shift and group polarization. American Sociological Review, 64(6), 856–875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E. (2001). Norm formation in social influence networks. Social Networks, 23(3), 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E. (2010). The attitude-behavior linkage in behavioral cascades. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 196–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E. (2011). A formal theory of reflected appraisals in the evolution of power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 501–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (1999). Social influence networks and opinion change. In E. J. Lawler & M. W. Macy (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 16, pp. 1–29). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (2003). Attitude change, affect control, and expectation states in the formation of influence networks. In S. R. Thye & J. Skvoretz (Eds.), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 20, pp. 1–29). New York: Elsevier/JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (2011). Social Influence Network Theory: A sociological examination of small group dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Groeber, P., Lorenz, J., & Schweitzer, F. (2014). A microfoundation of social influence in models of opinion formation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harary, F. (1959). A criterion for unanimity in French’s theory of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 168–182). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harary, F., Norman, R. Z., & Cartwright, D. (1965). Structural models: An introduction to the theory of directed graphs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3), 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janowitz, M. (1975). Sociological theory and social control. American Journal of Sociology, 81(1), 82–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Ritov, I. (1994). Determinants of stated willingness to pay for public goods: A study in the headline method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9(1), 5–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Ritov, I., & Schkade, D. (1999). Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 220–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23(1), 155–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, C. E., May, W. H., & Miron, M. S. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. D. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases (pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sznajd-Weron, K., & Sznajd, J. (2000). Opinion evolution in closed community. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 11(06), 1157–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D. (2000). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1998). Emotions. In D. T. Gilbert., S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 591–632). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93107, USA

    Noah E. Friedkin

Authors
  1. Noah E. Friedkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noah E. Friedkin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

    Jane D. McLeod

  2. Department of Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA

    Edward J. Lawler

  3. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Corolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

    Michael Schwalbe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Sciences + Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Friedkin, N. (2014). Social Justice in Local Systems of Interpersonal Influence. In: McLeod, J., Lawler, E., Schwalbe, M. (eds) Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9002-4_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation