Representing the group. Using and contributing to normative influence, which allows groups of any size to maintain a common identity and act as one, ideally resulting in group unity of action or agreement. This cognitive three-process (C3P) model proposes three inherently distinct processes, with different purposes, which can operate independently. However in normal FTF group interaction they work in parallel across the same behavior set, and their purposes complement each other (although they often impose contradictory demands on group members). This overlap is possible because the proposed processes are cognitive, and their effects can confound in behavior. For example the behavioral state of agreement can arise from any or all of informational influence (following common facts), personal influence (following commonly trusted individuals) or normative influence (following a common group position). This situation of having to infer causal processes is not new to research. Agreement can also arise in a group of randomly responding individuals by chance. Probability theory helps distinguish chance from non-chance effects based on the properties of a random theoretical process. Similarly each of the three processes has properties that allow it to be distinguished as a cause. For example agreement from task resolution should require task information exchange, agreement from personal influence should require signed interaction and personal context, and agreement from normative influence should require information about the group position. The C3P model suggests that the purpose of normative influence is to allow unity of action in a group choice situation, much as a herd or flock must stay together when moving, or the group as an entity will cease to exist. Intellectual choices can be seen as a form of behavioral choice, and decisions as intended behavior, so this process can be evoked by group choice situations (where choice consequences accrue to the entire group). The C3P model proposes normative influence is the primary means by which groups generate agreement, and that it can operate independently from informational and personal influence. Computer-mediated experiments provide evidence for this, showing that “persuasive arguments” (Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx, 1974) are not necessary for normative influence, and how much individuals move to a common position seems unaffected by removing arguments from simple position information (Xxx, Xxx, & Xxx, 1996). This suggests that the exchange o...
