Divergence vs. ambivalence: effects of personal relevance on minority influence

According to the literature on social influence, a minority source can induce two main cognitive processes: validation and divergence. The aim of the present study was to determine if the two processes are jointly or alternatively activated. We hypothesized that the process stimulated by the minority source would be different according to the personal relevance of the issue for the participants. Specifically, we predicted that a minority would induce more validation (i.e. ambivalent thoughts about the issue) in the low relevance condition rather than in the high relevance condition. On the other hand, the minority would produce more divergence (i.e. alternative proposals) in the high relevance condition rather than in the low relevance condition. Two experiments in which the participants were exposed to a counter‐attitudinal message of a minority or a majority supported these predictions. Moreover, in Study 1 evidence has also been found that a minority source fosters more pertinent (but not more original) proposals in the high relevance condition rather than in the low relevance condition, whereas in Study 2 ambivalence (other than divergence) appeared to be correlated with, but not a significant mediator of, indirect influence. The implications of these findings for minority influence theory are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effects of Caffeine Consumption on Direct and Indirect Majority and Minority Influence

A study is reported that examines the effect of caffeine consumption on majority and minority influence. In a double blind procedure, 72 participants consumed an orange drink, which either contained caffeine (3.5mg per kilogram of body weight) or did not (placebo). After a 40-minute delay, participants read a counter-attitudinal message (antivoluntary euthanasia) endorsed by either a numerical majority or minority. Both direct (message issue, i.e., voluntary euthanasia) and indirect (message issue-related, i.e., abortion) change was assessed by attitude scales completed before and after exposure to the message. In the placebo condition, the findings replicated the predictions of Moscovici's (1980) conversion theory; namely, majorities leading to compliance (direct influence) and minorities leading to conversion (indirect influence). When participants had consumed caffeine, majorities not only led to more direct influence than in the placebo condition but also to indirect influence. Minorities, by contrast, had no impact on either level of influence. The results suggest that moderate levels of caffeine increase systematic processing of the message but the consequences of this vary for each source. When the source is a majority there was increased indirect influence while for a minority there was decreased indirect influence. The results show the need to understand how contextual factors can affect social influence processes.     

Heuristic processing of distinctiveness information in minority and majority influence

The role of distinctiveness information in majority and minority influence was studied. Students read a message containing strong or weak arguments advocated by a minority or majority source. The communicator's minority (majority) status was said to be either distinctive to the target topic or nondistinctive across topics. Major dependent variables were attitude judgments and cognitive responses. Across conditions, messages were processed systematically, and a majority communicator tended to be more persuasive than a minority communicator. Most importantly, high distinctiveness led to greater influence than low distinctiveness, and this effect was independent of argument strength and minority versus majority status. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Indirect majority and minority influence: An exploratory study

In a 2 × 2 design, 85 subjects were asked to estimate the size of angles (direct influence) that were either 90 or 85°, after being confronted with incorrect judgements of a majority (88 per cent) or a minority (12 per cent) of people estimating the angles at 50°. Additionally, pre- and post-test measures were used to establish indirect influence on subjects' judgements pertaining to acute angles (i.e. on the estimation of the length of lines constituting the angles, and on the imaginary weight of figures represented by these angles). Overall, little direct influence is observed. This may partly be due to the introduction of a denial of the credibility of the source in all conditions. In fact, some evidence of direct influence is only found in the majority–85° angles condition. An instance of indirect influence (on the estimation of length of lines) appeared as the result of a majority stance when the angles in the experimental phase were 90°. When these angles were 85°, indirect minority influence (on the estimation of weight of figures) was observed. These effects had been predicted on the basis of the hypothesis stating that indirect majority influence would be possible when subjects expected consensus on the correct response (in the 90° angles condition), without being able to reach consensus at the manifest level (because of the denial and the restriction imposed by the clear shape of 90° angles). Indirect minority influence was hypothesized to be stronger in a situation that allows for diverse responses (i.e. for 85° angles).     

Minority influence and idiosyncrasy credit: A new comparison of the Moscovici and Hollander theories of innovation

Moscovici's model of minority influence and Hollander's model of idiosyncrasy credit were compared in an experiment conducted with I6 discussion groups composed of four male undergraduates (N = 64) and a confederate. Their task was to rank-order unanimously 10 proposals to remediate urban problems, to which the confederate attempted to have one more added, thus introducing a norm change. Two variables were manipulated: Status of the innovator (minority versus elected leader) and Ideological criterion for innovation (avant-garde versus reformist). It was predicted that the consistent behavioural style of the minority would make him more influential under the avant-garde condition than under the reformist condition whereas the idiosyncrasy credit of the leader would make him more influential under the reformist condition. Although the adoption hypotheses failed to be supported, the evaluations of the confederate were consistent with both the Moscovici and Hollander models. While the minority con federate's action gained him visibility and distinctive attributions of determination and assurance, the leader con federate's initiative cost him his competence and cooperation credits. Strategies devised to adopt the innovation or to reject it (five groups versus four) pointed to the importance of interactive networks within the majority and to the decisive role played by group leaders for the innovator's influence to be exerted. These findings lead to speculate that Hollander's theorizing could be complementary to Moscovici's to account for the diffusion of minority influence.     

Minority influence and musical preference: Innovation by conversion not coercion

Studied the effect of social categorization, strength of influence and predisposition to influence on social influence concerning musical preferences. One-hundred and sixty-eight French adolescents (age 15 years) were assigned to the eight conditions of a 2 (social categorization: majority/minority) × 2 (strength of influence: strong/weak) × 2 (predisposition to influence: pervious/impervious) design. Influence source was an opinion poll based on pupils from two types of secondary school. Direct influence was exerted from ‘hard-rock’ to ‘new wave’ music; indirect influence was measured by subjects' preferences for hard-rock versus ‘contemporary’ music. Ratings of the source were also elicited. Analyses of variance revealed indirect influence to be significantly greater with the minority than the majority source (p < 0.02). Indirect influence was especially high for subjects with a clear predisposition to influence and when the influence was weak (p < 0.0005). Further analyses confirmed the effect to be due to the actual numbers of subjects influenced. The study thus demonstrated the generalizability of the ‘conversion’ notion (minority influence on an indirect level) from numerical to social minorities.     

Studies on latent influence by the spectrometer method I: The impact of psychologization in the case of conversion by a minority or a majority

The effects of psychologization on the conversion phenomenon were studied for cases where influence was exerted either by a minority or by a majority. In a 2×2×3 ANOVA design (minority source versus majority source, personality versus aesthetics, phases) 48 subjects are faced with a confederate who represents either 18.2 per cent or 81.8 per cent of a population and consistently responds green when an objectively blue slide is shown. Colour perception is said to be associated with either aesthetic or personality factors. The prediction is in this last case that psychologization of the majority induces conversion of the subjects, while psychologization of the minority stands in the way of this latent influence. Influence is measured by four response levels for each trial of the three phases (pre-influence, post-influence in the presence or in the absence of the influence source). Manifest influence is measured in terms of the Subjects' Judgements and by the way in which they adjust their stimulus colour perception, as determined with the help of a spectrometer. The latent influence is reflected by the subjects' judgements about the colour of the afterimage upon presentation of the stimulus, as measured on a nine-point scale and with the help of spectral adjustments of this afterimage. The subjects having been influenced without being aware of their conversion shows up in the shifts toward green or the complementary colour of green. Results indicate a cross-over for the effect of indirect influence. Under the personality condition, psychologization has the anticipated effect. The majority is the only one to produce a conversion. The attenuating effect of minority influence again manrfests itserf (Mugny and Papastamou, 1980). Under the aesthetic condition, non-psychologization also induces latent and perceptive shifts, but they go in the opposite direction and coincide closely with other results (Moscovici and Personnaz, 1980; Personnaz, 1981). In this condition, only the minority exerts an influence on all three levels.     

Minority influence: the role of ambivalence toward the source

According to literature on social influence, a minority source may indirectly influence group members by fostering ambivalent reactions. Two studies were carried out in order to provide empirical support for this theoretical assumption. In Study 1 participants (n = 133), were exposed to a counter‐attitudinal minority message and ambivalence was manipulated by facilitating the accessibility of either ambivalent (positive and negative) or univalent (positive or negative) thoughts toward the source. We predicted and found more indirect influence in ambivalent condition than in univalent conditions. No effect of ambivalence on direct influence was found. In Study 2 (n = 127), ambivalence was measured and two possible antecedents of ambivalence, consistency of the minority and personal relevance of the topic for participants, were taken into account. Findings suggest that ambivalence mediates the effects of the two factors on indirect influence. In sum, these studies provide evidence of the importance of ambivalence in minority influence context, an early assumption that was still lacking in strong empirical support. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adding minority status to a source of conflict: an examination of influence processes and product quality in dyads

Minority influence and conflict exposure were studied in an additive fashion within discussion dyads to clarify the role each plays in divergent thinking. Dyad types (determined by each member's preference for a political candidate) included: No conflict (both members preferred the same candidate, conflict only (each member preferred a different candidate), and minority status plus conflict (same as conflict only with one candidate labeled the minority candidate). Dyads chose a candidate, brainstormed to solve a problem, chose one solution and developed a proposal, and evaluated their interaction. The results showed that minority dyads' discussions of the political candidates were robust and resulted in direct minority influence. Additionally, brainstorming and proposal quality were positively affected by the minority source of influence. It appears that the status of the source of conflict plays a critical role in divergent thinking. Additionally, group products appear to be affected by individual divergent thinking. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Learning Disabilities, Gender, Sources of Efficacy, Self-Efficacy Beliefs, and Academic Achievement in High School Students

This study examined the impact of gender, learning disability (LD) status, and sources of efficacy on self-efficacy beliefs and academic achievement in the concept of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Two hundred and seventy-eight high school students participated in the study. Structural equation modeling was used. The results revealed that LD status had indirect influence on self-efficacy via the source variable; gender did not have direct or indirect influences on self-efficacy; sources of efficacy had direct impact on self-efficacy, which in turn affected academic performance. The structural model fit the data well and explained 55% of the variance in academic achievement.     

Contrary effects of group cohesiveness in minority influence: Intergroup categorization of the source and levels of influence

The roles of group cohesiveness and intergroup categorization of the source in minority influence were studied in a 2 (high versus low cohesiveness) × 2 (ingroup versus outgroup source) × 3 (phases) factorial design. Six subjects forming a group were confronted with a confederate defending a minority position in a perceptual task. The results indicated a manifest influence effect (slide colour), accompanied by a latent polarization (afterimage) in the high cohesrveness/outgroup source condition, and a latent unfluence effect in the low cohesiveness/ingroup source condition.     

When is a minority a minority? Active versus passive minority advocacy and social influence

Some conceptions of minority influence have stressed the impact of the mere existence of an unpopular, deviant position. Others (e.g. Moscovici, 1980 ) have emphasized the active opposition of a committed minority to a powerful majority. An active advocate is defined as one that is aware of the level of support for his/her position, expresses his/her position openly, and whose outcomes may depend on others' agreement/disagreement. In the present study, the potential moderating role of an advocates' active/passive status on opinion change was examined. When the issue was highly relevant to the target of influence, all that mattered was the quality of the source's arguments (i.e. majority≈ minority, active source = passive source). When the issue was not highly relevant to the target, though, active and passive sources had different impact: (1) active sources prompted attention to argument quality (for minorities) and heuristic compliance (for majorities); (2) passive sources prompted insensitivity to both the popularity of the position and to the quality of the source's arguments. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Minority influence and social categorization

In this article, a theoretical distinction is proposed between representative outgroup minorities (representative of a minority category in the society, e.g. gays) and dissident outgroup minorities (defined as a minority subgroup within a larger outgroup category). Two studies are reported comparing the social influence of dissident outgroup minorities with that of ingroup minorities (belonging to the subject's own social category). It was predicted that a position advocated by a dissident outgroup minority would be more readily accepted than that of an ingroup minority, but that the ingroup minority would be more likely to elicit the generation of new, alternative solutions. A first experiment in which subjects were either exposed to an ingroup minority, an outgroup minority, or no influence source confirmed these predictions. In a second experiment, subjects were either exposed to a majority or to a minority source either belonging to the subject's own social category or to the outgroup. The results indicate that the position of an ingroup majority was readily accepted whereas the otherwise identical message of an outgroup majority was rejected; neither ingroup nor outgroup majority stimulated the development of alternative proposals. Again, in line with Nemeth' (1986a) theory, the position of an ingroup minority was rejected but stimulated the generation of new, alternative proposals. The differential role of social category membership in minority and majority influence and the applicability of Nemeth' (1986a) theory to the attitude change area are discussed.     

Attitude strength: Distinguishing predictors versus defining features

Attitudes play a fundamental role in many aspects of social psychology, but researchers have long recognized that attitudes vary in their susceptibility to change and their influence on behavior and cognitive processes. This insight lies at the heart of attitude strength, which is defined as an attitude's durability and impact. A variety of attitude attributes such as certainty and ambivalence have been shown to correlate with these aspects of attitude strength, which has made for some confusion as to what variables define strong attitudes versus predict an attitude's strength. In this article, we highlight this distinction between predictors and defining features of strength and review recent programs of research demonstrating the independence of strength‐related attitude attributes and attitude strength itself. Specifically, although some attitude attributes are associated with the attitude's durability and impact, there are conditions under which those attributes fail to predict attitude strength or even have the opposite effects. Throughout, this review reveals nuances in the attitude strength literature and provokes new questions for future inquiry.     

Compliance,conversion and the Asch paradigm

120 subjects took part in an Asch type experiment, using a material which was suitable for the measurement of indirect influence. The subjects were given the consistent incorrect response of a source which was either a majority (the response given by 88 per cent of a parent population of college students) or a minority (12 per cent). Part of the subjects were told that the experiment was investigating perceptual illusions and an example of such illusions was given. An authority condition was also introduced: the experimenter himself gave the incorrect response. A control condition did not involve any influence or illusion. The results show that direct influence increases when there is a stronger symbolic social pressure. They also show that an indirect influence may be induced by a numerical majority (provided that the subjects believe that there is an illusion) as well as a numerical minority (provided that an illusion does not invalidate its response). These results underline how important it is to control the exact significance of experimental situations that are supposed to represent the psychological conditions of majority or minority influence.     

Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influence: When being an outgroup is an advantage

In a 2 × 2 factorial design, 165 high school girls gave their opinions about abortion (direct influence) and about contraception (indirect ifluence) after reading a message advocating abortion said to have been written by either an ingroup (same sex) or an outgroup (opposite sex) minority and explicitly opposed by the majority opinion of either the ingroup or the outgroup. Results show that there is less direct influence when the ingroup majority is opposed to the minority, and more direct influence when the process of identification is less involved. Indirect influence appears in an intergroup context where categorization of majority and minority into different groups is superimposed on their ideological dissent, which has the effect of allowing recognition of the minority's distinctiveness and validity over and above the discrimination that appears at the direct influence level. In discussing the results, a theoretical integration of social comparison and validation processes is proposed as a step towards explaining the diversity of minority influence phenomena.     

Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence

Three experiments are reported which examine the effects of consensus information on majority and minority influence. In all experiments two levels of consensus difference were examined; large (82% versus 18%) and small (52% versus 48%). Experiment 1 showed that a majority source had more influence than a minority source, irrespective of consensus level. Experiment 2 examined the cause of this effect by presenting only the source label (‘majority’ versus ‘minority’), only the consensus information (percentages) or both. The superior influence of the majority was again found when either (a) both source label and consensus information were given (replicating Experiment 1) and (b) only consensus information was given, but not when (c) only the source label was given. The results showed majority influence was due to the consensus information indicating more than 50% of the population supported that position. Experiment 3 also manipulated message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to identify whether systematic processing had occurred. Message quality only had an impact with the minority of 18%. These studies show that consensus information has different effects for majority and minority influence. For majority influence, having over 50% support is sufficient to cause compliance while for a minority there are advantages to being numerically small, in terms of leading to detailed processing of its message. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Majority versus minority influence: when,not whether,source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing

Two experiments investigated the extent of message processing of a persuasive communication proposed by either a numerical majority or minority. Both experiments crossed source status (majority versus minority) with message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to determine which source condition is associated with systematic processing. The first experiment showed a reliable difference between strong and weak messages, indicating systematic processing had occurred, for a minority irrespective of message direction (pro‐ versus counter‐attitudinal), but not for a majority. The second experiment showed that message outcome moderates when a majority or a minority leads to systematic processing. When the message argued for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the majority source; but when the message did not argue for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the minority source. Thus one key moderator of whether a majority or minority source leads to message processing is whether the topic induces defensive processing motivated by self‐interest. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Internalization of conflict and attitude change

In a 2 × 2 × 2 design, eighty smokers were exposed to an anti-smoking appeal attributed either to an expert source (superior status) or a minority source (inferior status). Subjects were either allowed or not to smoke during the experiment. In addition subjects had to memorize part of the appeal and a recall task either followed after reading the appeal (completed task) or not (uncompleted task). The results show that the expert source produces more attitude change than the minority when the tension induced by the source is weakened (either by the opportunity to smoke or task completion). In contrast the minority has more impact when subjects are not able to smoke or when the task is not completed, which is to say when the conflict has been internalized. An explanation of these effects is offered in terms of the more defensive forms of resistance involved with respect to sources of superior status compared to more assertive forms with respect to minorities.     

Direct and vicarious conspicuous consumption: Identification with low‐status groups increases the desire for high‐status goods

The current research examines whether direct and vicarious identification with a low-status group affects consumers' desire for objects associated with status. Experiment 1 found that individuals who belonged to and identified with a status social category associated with relatively lower status (Blacks) exhibited an enhanced desire for high-status products compared to Blacks who did not identify with their race or individuals who belonged to a social category associated with higher status (Whites). In Experiments 2 and 3, White participants led to vicariously identify through perspective taking with Blacks (Experiment 2), or a low-status occupational group (Experiment 3) exhibited an increased desire for high-status products. Experiment 4 provided meditational evidence for a status based explanation for the relationship between identification with a low-status group and a desire for high-status products. The present work makes new inroads into understanding one factor that might lead minorities to engage in greater conspicuous consumption and provides evidence that conspicuous consumption can be elicited vicariously.