Psychologization and processes of minority and majority influence

Minority influence, although possible, is relatively difficult for an active minority to achieve. One of the obstactes encountered by a minority in the diffusion of an innovation is psychologization which consists in the establishment of a link between the ideological positions defended by the source of influence and psychological characteristics which are specific to that source. The experiment presented here seeks to show that psychologization constitutes an ideological barrier only to minority influence while this mode of interpretation of the source does not reduce the influence of a majority. The results obtained seem to confirm this hypothesis, above all when subjects possess opinions relatively close to those of the influence source. When on the other hand subjects have opinions that are relatively distant from those defended by the source, the explicit induction of psychologization does not seem to affect the degree of influence. It was also found that in the absence of such induction, ‘distant’ subjects would ‘spontaneously’ psychologize a minority source, in particular attributing its arguments to psychological imbalance.     

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: The effect of majority reactionaries and defectors,and minority and majority compromisers,upon majority opinion and attraction

The effects of shifting opinions within a group upon majority opinion, communication between members and perceived attractiveness of other members were studied. Each subject perceived himself to be a member of the majority in a group whose opinion was divided 6–2 on an important issue. But later one to three group members changed their vote. Six conditions of change were established: Control, majority reactionary, majority compromise, majority defection (5-3), minority compromise, minority compromise plus majority reactionary. Only majority compromise or defection affected majority opinion (private and public). Majority members were disliked when they deviated from majority opinion, but particularly so when they shifted toward minority opinion. Minority members were liked most when they induced a majority member to compromise (but not defect). Majority communication to minority occurred most when the minority was compromising, but most disagreement with minority opinion was expressed when a majority member had either compromised or defected.     

Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs minority influence

A comparison of influence processes exerted by a majority versus a minority is made, both theoretically and empirically. In this study, comparing the two processes in the same experimental setting, it was hypothesized that subjects would ‘follow’ the majority more than the minority, that is, they would be more influenced to adopt the exact same position. However, it was predicted that subjects exposed to the minority would be stimulated to find new solutions to the problem, solutions that were not offered by the minority but that the subjects would not have found by themselves. Further, these solutions would tend to be correct rather than incorrect. Results support these predictions.     

The influence of in-group and out-group favouritism on the disciplinary practice of ethnic majority and minority preservice teachers

Social Psychology of Education - Teacher judgments and the disciplinary sanctioning of pupils can be understood as a function of the ethnic match, which means whether or not teachers and pupils...     

The effects of differential ascribed category membership and norms on minority influence

Investigated how either perceived competency or self-interest-and Zeitgeist affect minority influence, or: how Moscovici's theory does apply to actual social minorities. The self-interest notion predicts that ‘single’ minorities (deviating only in terms of beliefs) are more influential than ‘double’ minorities (deviating also in category membership) while the competency notion predicts the reverse. Further, either minority is expected to be influential only when the Zeitgeist is in favour of the minority position. In a 2 (pro/anti Zeitgeist) × 3 (single/double minority/control) factorial design, 120 conservative male American undergraduates discussed in groups of six-including two either male (single minority) or female (double minority) consistently liberal con federates-one of two issues: abortion (pro-) or death penalty (anti- Zeitgeist). The results support the self-interest notion: double minorities are perceived as having a stronger self-interest and exerted less influence than single minorities. The Zeitgeist hypothesis is confirmed, too. The underlying attributional processes and the ecological validity of previous studies are discussed.     

From majority to minority and vice versa: the asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group

Two studies examined the effects of stable, partially changed, and completely changed majority and minority positions within a group on perception and evaluation of the group. It was hypothesized that loss of majority position (majority-to-minority change) would have stronger effects than gain of majority position (minority-to-majority change). The hypothesized asymmetrical effect was demonstrated in that loss of majority position decreased perception of group-self similarity, group attraction, and expectations for positive interactions with the group, whereas a corresponding gain of position did not increase them. Thus immediately following changes, the group is especially fragile because disintegrative forces created by the loss of majority position are stronger than integrative forces created by the gain of majority position.     

Cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members: The role of group size, status, and power

Four studies examined cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members. We predicted and found that minority members were more cognitively preoccupied with their group membership and experienced less positive affect as a consequence of their group membership than majority members. The first experiment established these effects with numerical minority and majority groups. The second experiment ruled out status as an explanatory variable, and the third experiment uncovered the role of power in the differential cognitive and affective experiences of minority and majority members. The final field study substantiated the ecological robustness of the experimental findings and provided further evidence for the role of power. The interrelation of status and power is discussed as well as the phenomenology of being a minority member.     

Minority influence: The role of argument refutation of the majority position and social support for the minority position

This study was conducted to determine the impact of social support for the minority position and the minority's argument refutation of the majority viewpoint. The results indicated that both the minority's refutation of majority arguments and majority defection to the minority position enhanced minority influence. Subjects changed more toward the minority position when the minority could refute the majority position than when the minority could not; the more arguments the minority refuted, the greater was minority influence. In addition, minority influence was a positive function of the number of the majority members who deserted to the minority position.     

The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: the importance of congruence

The role of congruence and incongruence in diverse decision-making groups is examined by manipulating opinion agreement within and between members of different social categories. Congruence occurs when ingroup members agree with one another and outgroup members disagree, whereas incongruence occurs when an ingroup member disagrees with a majority composed of ingroup and outgroup members. The results of two studies, one using a scenario methodology and the second using simulated work teams with two ingroup members and one outgroup member, show that regardless of the task-relevance of salient differences, individuals respond most favorably when categorical and opinion differences are congruent. Study 1 examined individuals' emotional reactions and group efficacy. Study 2 examined group performance, the minority influence process, and efforts to maintain congruence. The findings suggest that outgroup minority opinion holders may be more influential in diverse group decision-making settings than ingroup minority opinion holders.     

Group status drives majority and minority integration preferences

This research examined preferences for national- and campus-level assimilative and pluralistic policies among Black and White students under different contexts, as majority- and minority-group members. We targeted attitudes at two universities, one where 85% of the student body is White, and another where 76% of students are Black. The results revealed that when a group constituted the majority, its members generally preferred assimilationist policies, and when a group constituted the minority, its members generally preferred pluralistic policies. The results support a functional perspective: Both majority and minority groups seek to protect and enhance their collective identities.     

Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants

In two studies, one among 94 Moroccan and 203 Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands and one among 1844 people of the Dutch majority, we examined how these groups react to four different adaptation strategies of people with a Moroccan and a Turkish background. These strategies are: assimilation (original culture is considered unimportant whereas contact with the majority is considered important), integration (both the original culture and contact with the majority are important), separation (original culture is considered important whereas contact with the majority is not), and marginalization (both the original culture and contact with the majority are considered unimportant). The respondents were confronted with a scenario (a fictitious newspaper article) representing one of the four strategies. Moroccans and Turks had to indicate whether they identified themselves with the person in the scenario. Their affective and normative reactions towards that person were also measured. Both Moroccans and Turks appeared to react most positively to integration and to identify themselves most with an integrating person. Dutch majority members were asked to estimate the percentage of Moroccans or Turks that use a particular adaptation form, and were also asked to give their affective and normative reactions towards the person in the scenario. The Dutch have positive attitudes towards assimilation and integration. Remarkably, they believe that separation, which is the least liked strategy by them, is the one chosen most frequently by the immigrants. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members

Three experiments revealed a consistent pattern of consensus estimates. Numerical status and group growth or decline were manipulated between subjects. Growth was manipulated orthogonally to a 3rd variable: focus. Focus was manipulated by describing growth information with respect either to the in-group or the out-group (e.g., in-group growth and out-group decline). A Numerical Status X Focus interaction emerged in Study 1. Numerical minority members' consensus estimates for an opinion issue increased when growth information was out-group focused, whereas majority members' estimates did not differ as a function of the focus variable. Study 2 replicated these effects across other opinion dimensions. Study 3 confirmed the importance of the growth and focus variables in the absence of numerical status manipulations.     

The role of censorship in minority influence

This study was conducted to determine the impact of censoring a minority who had argued persuasively against the majority. While there was no significant increase in minority influence when one-third of the minority's message was censored, the minority was more effective when two-thirds of its message was censored. The minority was most effective when two-thirds of its message was censored and when the minority was prevented from continuing to espouse its position. The results were explained by the theory of psychological reactance.     

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.     

Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations

Using a variant of the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), this study tested the effects of power, status and group numbers on intergroup behaviours and perceptions. Subjects (N = 160) were categorized into groups that varied on status (high or low), power (dominant or subordinate) and group numbers (majority or minority) variables within a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design. Based on their evaluations of others' creative products, subjects distributed credit points to ingroup and outgroup others using the Tajfel matrices. Results showed that dominant group members were much more discriminatory and less parity oriented towards outgroup others than subordinate group members. High status group members were more discriminatory and less parity oriented than low status group members. Minority group members who were dominant and of high status were highly discriminatory and were unique in showing no parity whatsoever towards outgroup others. Subordinate low status minorities did not discriminate and were exceptional in showing out-group favouritism. Relative to group status and group numbers, group power seemed more predictive of actual discriminatory behaviour. Group status accounted for the greatest variance in social identification and intergroup perceptions measures. Results also showed that social categorization was sufficient to elicit more in-group than outgroup liking amongst all group members regardless of their position in the intergroup structure. Overall, this study indicated that power, status and group numbers independently and in combination, have a strong impact on intergroup behaviours and perceptions.     

On predicting minority influence

Paralleling closely an experiment on group polarization by Vinokur and Burnstein (1978), subjects discussed one of three risky, cautious, or neutral choice dilemmas. For each of the value items, one half of the six-person groups consisted of a cautious minority and a risky majority; the other half consisted of a risky minority and a cautious majority. The minorities always consisted of trained confederates. The results indicated that on risky items minorities that argued for risk had more influence than minorities advocating caution; on neutral and cautious items the majority was not influenced by the minority whether it advocated the risky or cautious alternative.     

Jewish-Arab violence: perspectives of a dominant majority and a subordinate minority

In 2 studies, the authors investigated intergroup violence as perceived by Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. University and junior high school students judged Jewish-Arab clashes, which ended in shots fired at a crowd of either Jewish or Arab demonstrators. The authors hypothesized that judgments of these shootings would be contingent on 3 variables: the origin of the respondent, the origin of the shooter, and the level of danger to the shooter. The results tended to support those hypotheses: (a) Both Jewish and Arab respondents justified shootings by members of their own group more readily than those by members of the other group. (b) Jewish judgments of violence were associated more closely than Arab judgments with the danger that the demonstrators posed to the shooter. (c) The Jewish respondents referred to self-defense more often than did the Arab respondents to justify their judgments, whereas the Arab respondents referred more often to intergroup considerations. Those differences may reflect the disagreement between the majority and the minority on the issue that each group should take into consideration in cases of international violence.     

Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.