iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
People can shape how you act and see yourself through group norms, close relationships, and repeated interactions. But “dependency injection” and “programming yourself into someone’s identity” are metaphors, not established psychological diagnoses or single, proven mechanisms. To understand what is happening, distinguish temporary compliance from identification and from adopting an idea as your own—and distinguish ordinary influence from repeated coercion or control.
How do social norms shape influence?
People often look to a group they value when deciding what is normal, acceptable, or expected. Group identity can make some norms especially influential: a person may adjust their behavior because they see themselves as part of the group and care about its standards. The social setting matters, too. Russell Spears’s 2021 review examines group-identity explanations of social influence alongside normative influence, interdependence, social-network, and persuasion approaches. It does not treat group influence as necessarily covert or harmful. Spears, “Social Influence and Group Identity” (2021).
Influence can be useful, harmful, or neither. Learning a group’s norms may help someone cooperate or feel connected; pressure to suppress a personal need can have a different effect. The presence of influence alone does not establish manipulation.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesCompliance, identification, and internalization are different
Herbert C. Kelman’s framework separates three social influence processes that are easy to blur together. The distinction helps explain why changing behavior in a situation is not the same as changing a person’s lasting beliefs. Kelman, “Interests, Relationships, and Identities: Three Central Issues for Individuals and Groups in Negotiating Their Social Environment” (2006).
| Process | What changes | What it does not establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance | A person acts in line with a request or expectation under a condition of influence. | That the person privately agrees or will continue the behavior when the pressure or setting changes. |
| Identification | A person adopts behavior or attitudes associated with a valued relationship or group. | That the adopted view has become an enduring personal value independent of the relationship. |
| Internalization | A person incorporates an idea into their own value system. | That the change was imposed, harmful, or achieved through manipulation. |
These categories describe different ways influence can operate; they are not a test for whether a particular person has been controlled.
What is introjection?
Introjection is a historical psychological concept for learning self-reactions from the reactions of other people. In a 1964 article, Michael Argyle described it as “the learning of self-reactions from the reaction of others.” The article’s abstract reports this in some children but not others in specified parent-child contexts; it does not establish introjection as an inevitable process or a universal explanation for adult identity. Argyle, “Introjection and Imitation in Childhood” (1964).
Rank #2
A related idea appears in copy process theory, tested by Kenneth L. Critchfield and Lorna Smith Benjamin in 2008. They examined three proposed patterns: identification, or acting as the other acted; recapitulation, or acting toward the other as one was treated; and introjection, or treating oneself as one was treated. The study reported evidence for each pattern in a psychiatric inpatient sample of 161 and a college sample of 133. Those are the sample sizes in that study, not estimates of how often the patterns occur in the general population. The authors also note that gender, patient status, and rated state may affect whether and how copying occurs. Critchfield and Benjamin, “A Procedural Analysis of the ‘Copy Process’ in Brief Process Therapy” (2008).
What is manipulation in close relationships?
Persuasion, disagreement, and manipulation are not interchangeable. In a 1992 study of close relationships, David M. Buss reported 12 tactics assembled through factor analyses: charm, reason, coercion, silent treatment, debasement, regression, responsibility invocation, reciprocity, monetary reward, pleasure induction, social comparison, and hardball tactics. The study examined associations between personality factors and tactics; a tactic on this list does not diagnose a person, establish a personality type, or prove that every use of persuasion is manipulative. Buss, “Manipulation in Close Relationships: Five Personality Factors in Interactional Context” (1992).
One way to assess a troubling pattern is to focus on what repeatedly happens, rather than trying to infer intent from one interaction. Relevant questions include whether someone uses coercion or degrading treatment, whether your boundaries or perspective are routinely dismissed, and whether you feel free to disagree without retaliation. These questions can help describe a relationship, but they are not a validated diagnostic checklist.
How parental psychological control differs from ordinary rules
Parental psychological control is a specific construct in parent-child research, not a label for every strict rule or disagreement. Brian K. Barber’s 1996 article distinguishes it from more behaviorally oriented control. Psychological control involves constraining, invalidating, or manipulating a child’s psychological and emotional experience and expression. The studies described reported that this form of control predicted youth internalized problems. Those findings concern the parent-child context and should not be generalized automatically to every relationship. Barber, “Parental Psychological Control: Revisiting a Neglected Construct” (1996).
Rank #4
What peer influence can—and cannot—tell you
Friends may influence one another, but similarity between two people does not show who influenced whom. Some similarities can exist before a friendship begins, and peer influence can be adaptive or maladaptive. A person’s resemblance to a friend, partner, or group is therefore not proof that the other person deliberately changed their identity. Brechwald and Prinstein, “Beyond Homophily: A Decade of Advances in Understanding Peer Influence Processes” (2009).
How to describe what is happening without overclaiming
- Name the change: Is it a particular action, a group affiliation, a belief, or a repeated way you respond to yourself?
- Notice the process: Are you complying in one situation, identifying with someone or a group, or adopting a belief as your own?
- Consider the setting: Group norms, a close relationship, a parent-child relationship, and a peer group are not interchangeable contexts.
- Look for behavior over time: Repeated coercion, silent treatment, debasement, or constraints on emotional expression are more informative than resemblance or a single disagreement, while still not amounting to a universal diagnosis.
- Leave intent open unless there is evidence: A person can influence you without planning to control you, and the effect of influence can be positive, negative, or mixed.
There is no established test in these sources for determining whether someone has “programmed” another person’s identity. The metaphor may capture a feeling of change, but a grounded account describes the relationship, behavior, and type of influence rather than treating that phrase as a clinical conclusion.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
