The assumption that individual behavior has an antecedent evaluative foundation is an important component of theories in sociology, psychology, political science, and economics. In its simplest form, the antecedent evaluation is a positive or negative attitude toward an object that may affect an individual's object-related behavior. This attitude may be influenced by the attitudes of other persons. The occurrence of such endogenous interpersonal influences, in which persons' attitudes are affected by other persons' attitudes, is among the basic postulates of social psychology. The present article advances work on the attitude-behavior linkage in behavioral cascades by jointly considering two theories: the theory of reasoned-planned action, which emphasizes the deliberative foundations of individuals' object-related behaviors, and social influence network theory, which emphasizes the group dynamics involved in the formation of individuals' attitudes. © American Sociological Association 2010.

This article is concerned with the problem of the relative contributions of structural cohesion and equivalence to the explanation of social homogeneity. Structural Cohesion models are explanatory models in that they are based on causal assumptions concerning the effects of structural cohesion upon individuals' attitudes and behaviors. The results of the present analysis indicate that direct and short indirect communication channels are critical components of cohesion models that largely account for their success in predicting social homogeneity. However, not all social homogeneity is caused by structural cohesion. Structural equivalence models offer a general approach for mapping the distribution of social homogeneity in a population. Rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference in homogeneity between structurally equivalent and nonequivalent persons supports the construct validity of structural equivalence with respect to its use as an indicator of social homogeneity. The present results provide little support for the additional claim that structural equivalence provides some explanation of social homogeneity.

I propose a mechanism of norm formation and maintenance that combines classical theory in social psychology on attitudes and social comparisons with a formal network theory of social influence. Underlying the formation of norms is the ubiquitous belief that there is a correct response for every situation and an abiding interest for persons to base their responses on these correct foundations. Given such a belief, a normative evaluation of a feeling, thought or action is likely to arise when persons perceive that their positive or negative attitudinal evaluation is shared by one or more influential others. If interpersonal agreements validate attitudes and transform attitudes into norms, then the development of a theory of norm formation may draw on extant "combinatorial" theories of consensus production that describe how shared attitudes are produced and maintained in groups. The network theory of social influence that I employ is one such combinatorial approach. An important sociological implication of this network theory is that the content of norms must be consistent with the social stratification (or more general pattern of inequality) of interpersonal influences in a group. I illustrate the theory with an analysis of Roethlisberger and Dickson's (1939) classic observations on the Bank Wiring Observation Room. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V.

The coordination and control of social systems is the foundational problem of sociology. The discipline was established in Europe in the aftermath of the American and French Revolutions. With the dismantling of the hierarchical controls of European aristocratic systems, the examination of alternative mechanisms of coordination and control became a preoccupation. The Industrial Revolution (c. 1760-1840), which was occurring at the same time, reinforced this preoccupation by decoupling the power of purse and the power of positions of authority. While the hierarchies of church and state retained coercive power, the exercise of such power was increasingly contested. The moral compass of society, its general welfare, and its capacity to adapt to changing circumstances appeared to be aggregated properties of the unconstrained opinions and behaviors of a large collectivity of individuals. The definition of the problem of coordination and control, which emerged in Europe in the new discipline of sociology, still resonates and guides current sociological work. The problem definition [1], broadly stated, is this: if value is placed on nonhierarchical mechanisms of social control, then what mechanisms and structures (consistent with this value) allow a coordination and control of social systems?

This article investigates the evolution of power with a formal theory that focuses on the influence network through which control of a group's outcomes emerges via direct and indirect interpersonal influences on group members' positions on a series of issues over time. Power evolves when individuals' openness or closure to interpersonal influences correspond with their prior relative control over the group's issue outcomes. In groups with members who are appraising the relative power of their members over the outcomes of prior issues, a mechanism of "reflected appraisals" will elevate and dampen members' self-appraisals of their relative power and the amount of influence they accord to others. Across a series of issues over time, this mechanism suffices to generate state transitions of a group's influence network. The result is an evolution of the group's influence network such that, with rare exceptions, power becomes concentrated and the preferences of a single leader control the group's outcomes via intermediaries. A laboratory experiment and a simulation provide support for the theory. The analysis suggests that the evolution of the influence network toward concentrated forms of power and control is generated by fundamental social psychological responses to power and may occur in all enduring social groups whose members are dealing with a lengthy sequence of issues, independent of the conditions of bureaucratic organizations. © The Author(s) 2011.

I extend the theoretical domain of sociology into an area of social psychology that therefore has been the exclusive domain of psychologists. Specifically, I develop a social structural perspective on the choice shifts that individuals make within groups. During interpersonal discussions of issues, choice shifts occur when there is a difference between group members' mean final opinion and their mean initial opinion. Explanations of choice shifts have emphasized group-level conditions (e.g., a norm, a decision rule, a pool of persuasive arguments, a distribution of initial opinions). I argue that choice shifts are a ubiquitous product of the inequalities of interpersonal influence that emerge during discussions of issues. Hence, I bring choice shifts squarely into the domain of a structural social psychology that attends to the composition of networks of interpersonal influence and into broader sociological perspectives concerned with the formation of status structures.

Network analysts are increasingly being called upon to apply their expertise to groups for which the only available or reliable data is a contact network. With no opportunity to gather additional data, the merits of such applications depend on empirical studies that validate the employment of structural constructs based on contact networks. Fortunately, we possess such studies in abundance. One of the strongest research traditions in social network analysis is the development of formal constructs that may be employed in analyses of networks. I suggest that greater insight into predictive success of network constructs may be acquired by addressing the following question: what features of the contact network in which a dyad is situated allow the prediction of other relations with an accuracy that validates the imputation of the latter given data on the former? In this article, I present findings on the structural contexts of dyads in contact networks and the relationship of these contexts with two fundamental forms of cohesive cognitive relations-accorded interpersonal influence and perceived interpersonal agreement. Based on these findings, I formalize a measure of structural proximity in contact networks with values that correspond to the conditional probabilities of these two forms of cohesive cognitive relations. The substantive settings of this analysis are policy groups with members who are embedded in contact structures based on regular interpersonal communication on policy issues and cognitive structures based on perceived interpersonal agreement and accorded interpersonal influence. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.