In studying effects that flow from perceptions of mass opinion, the often inconsistent evidence is rendered even less interpretable by the lack of a theoretical framework suggesting who should be most susceptible, when, and under what conditions. The blunt prediction of social determinism sheds little light on the subtleties of social influence and corresponds poorly with available evidence. Most research has focused on establishing whether such an effect exists without articulating or examining the process by which it occurs. In a research area rife with inconsistent findings, it is particularly important for research to focus on process. Studies establishing a mechanism of influence will promote an understanding not only of why an effect occurs, but also when and why it does not according to some underlying model.

In this manner, seemingly inconsistent evidence can hopefully be rendered interpretable, and reliable predictions can be made. In this chapter, I analyze the most promising psychological theories for understanding these phenomena. A major reason for the lack of any cumulative understanding of impersonal influence has been the shortage of social-psychological theories explaining or predicting such effects. Moreover, the search for relevant theories has transpired amidst tremendous cultural concern focused on certain kinds of social influence at the expense of others.

THE EMPHASIS ON CONFORMITY

Researchers looking for theoretical guidance as to why people are influenced by perceptions of mass opinion quite naturally have turned to the literature on conformity.