Increasing the size of the minority: Some gains and some losses

Both folklore and much of the social psychological literature suggest that influence and numbers go hand in hand. The more the people espousing a particular position, the more they are presumed to be correct, and the more influence they will exert. Such a contention has received support in the conformity literature (Asch, 1955). However, recent work in minority influence demonstrates that a few people, provided they show particular consistency and confidence, are able to exert influence on a majority. We have hypothesized that such perceptions of consistency and confidence bear an inverse relationship to size of the minority. Combining these two findings, we predicted that, as size of the minority increases, their presumed competence increases but their presumed confidence in their position decreases. We further predicted that a combination of the two perceptions is the best predictor of influence exerted by that minority. These predictions received support in the present study.     

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.     

Behavioural style and group cohesiveness as sources of minority influence

Behavioural style and group cohesiveness were tested as sources of minority influence under conditions in which rejection of the minority from the group was possible and under conditions in which it was not. Female subjects (N = 120) were led to believe that they were interacting as a group and that they held a majority position on a relevant issue. The influence agent, ostensibly one of the group members, advocated a minority position throughout their interaction. Three variables were manipulated: group cohesiveness (high or low), behavioural style of the deviate (high or low consistency) and opportunity for rejection of the deviate from the group (possible or not possible). It was predicted that the deviate would be more influential under high cohesive than under low cohesive conditions and that she would be most influential when she was highly consistent and there was no opportunity to reject her. Although both hypotheses were confirmed, unexpected minority influence effects were also found.     

Effects of in-group and out-group support on behavioral consistency: The majority and minority in the context of an intergroup belief cross

Abstract:   The present study investigated the social determinants required to stimulate consistency in minority members' attitudes and behavior. The experiment was designed to examine the consistency of individuals in the context of an intergroup belief cross wherein the majority belief (or minority) in a categorical in-group shifted to the minority (or majority) in the out-group. The results indicated that the members of a majority within an in-group consistently preserved their behavioral intentions and beliefs even though they were positioned as a minority within an out-group. That is, the minority members in the whole intergroup context maintained consistency diachronically as a result of support from the majority of their in-group. The theoretical implications on the consistency of minority members, such as whistle-blowers in companies, are discussed.     

Synchronic consistency and psychologization in minority influence

The importance of synchronic consistency as a factor facilitating minority influence had not previously been the object of a systematic study. We carried out a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 experiment aimed at studying the consequences of a) ideological similarity or dissimilarity of two minority sources belonging to b) a single minority or two different ones, on subjects c) ideologically both close and distant from positions defended by the influence sources, d) according to the absence or presence of psychologization. In the main, our hypotheses were confirmed. As expected concerning the ‘close’ subjects, in the absence of psychologization, the similarity and dissimilarity between minority sources take over, respectively, the signification of consistency and inconsistency and, consequently, increase or decrease the influence exerted by the minority sources. Psychologization decreases the benefits of synchronic consistency. Contrariwise, the ‘distant’ subjects did not seem to follow the same ‘logic’: the condition of opinion dissimilarity in the same minority is the most influential; its influence, however, diminishes when the divergence of opinion is explained by means of a psychological dissimilarity. Data related to the image of the sources indicate that the influence process is no longer determined by perceived consistency or inconsistency, but by the objectivity attributed to minorities. Under these circumstances, intra-minority pluralism became the guaranteer of objectivity.     

Majority and minority influence using the afterimage paradigm: A replication with an unambiguous blue slide

This study re-examines the afterimage paradigm which claims to show that a minority produces a conversion in a task involving afterimage judgements (more private influence than public influence) as opposed to mere compliance produced by a majority. Subsequent failures to replicate this finding have suggested that the changes in the afterimages could be attributed to increased attention due to an ambiguous stimulus coupled with subject suspiciousness. This study attempted to replicate the original experiment but with an unambiguous stimulus in order to remove potential biases. The results showed shifts in afterimages consistent with the increased attention hypothesis for a minority and majority and these were unaffected by the level of suspiciousness reported by the subjects. Additional data shows that no shifts were found in a no-influence control condition showing that shifts were related to exposure to a deviant source and not to response repetition.     

The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence

This study was conducted in order to compare the influence of ingroup and outgroup minorities and to assess the role of perceived source credibility in minority influence. The subjects were exposed to the simultaneous majority/minority influence paradigm. Ingroup minorities were more influential than outgroup minorities. Subjects moved toward the minority position in private and toward the majority position in public when the minority was represented by members of the ingroup. On private responses subjects were not affected by outgroup minorities who argued for abortion, and they became more positive toward abortion when outgroup minorities opposed abortion. Final &, ingroup minorities were perceived as more credible than outgroup minorities and greater credibility of minority source was associated with greater attitude change toward the minority position. The superior influence of ingroup minorities held when controlling for source credibility. Overall, the results were highly supportive of social identity theory.     

The context of intergroup belief cross wherein minority members maintain consistency: Belief minority and majority in a categorical in‐group and out‐group1

Abstract: The present study investigated the social conditions required for minority members to preserve their attitudinal and behavioral consistency in an intergroup context. In the experiment, intergroup belief crosses wherein a belief minority (or majority) in a categorical in‐group was reversed as a majority (or minority) in an out‐group were manipulated. It was hypothesized that individuals supported by the majority in the categorical in‐group would preserve their attitudes and behavioral intentions even though they were a minority in the categorical out‐group. The results supported the hypothesis. Specifically, members of a majority in the categorical in‐group had more consistent behavioral intentions and less attitude changes although they were located as a minority in the out‐group. In contrast, members of a minority within the in‐group preserved consistency on the basis of support from the majority in the out‐group. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed with reference to future research.     

Minority influence: the role of the rate of majority defection and persuasive arguments

An experiment employing the Twelve Angry Men paradigm was conducted to determine the role of the rate of majority defection to the minority position and the use of persuasive arguments by the minority on minority influence. Subjects were more influenced by the minority when it provided persuasive arguments by refuting the majority viewpoint than when the minority did not. More minority influence occurred when the minority obtained majority defectors than when the minority did not. Moreover, the rate of majority defection made a difference. Minority influence was not obtained with the initial acquisition of a single defector and the significant influence that occurred with the acquisition of four defectors was not further increased by the acquisition of additional defectors. The results for the number of majority defectors were generally consistent with Tanford and Penrod's social influence model. Finally, the issue of the number of majority defectors versus the speed at which they defect is discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Minority-Majority Conundrum in Northern Ireland: An Orange Order Perspective

Researchers have argued that, depending on the framing of the Northern Ireland conflict, each group could either be a minority or a majority relative to the other. This complicates macrosocial explanations of the conflict which make specific predictions on the basis of minority or majority positions. The present paper argues that this conundrum may have arisen from the inherent variability in microidentity processes that do not fit easily with macroexplanations. In this paper the rhetoric of relative group position is analysed in political speeches delivered by leading members of an influential Protestant institution in Northern Ireland. It is apparent that minority and majority claims are not fixed but are flexibly used to achieve local rhetorical goals. Furthermore, the speeches differ before and after the Good Friday Agreement, with a reactionary "hegemonic" Unionist position giving way to a "majority-rights power sharing" argument and a "pseudo-minority" status giving way to a "disempowered minority" argument. These results suggest a view of the Northern Ireland conflict as a struggle for "symbolic power," i.e., the ability to flexibly define the intergroup situation to the ingroup's advantage.     

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.     

Source consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus: the three dimensions of the Kelley ANOVA model in persuasion

Based on a conceptual analysis and existing research, the authors propose that the three source dimensions specified in the ANOVA model play similar roles in persuasion as other source characteristics (e.g., expertise). Two studies test assumptions derived from this approach regarding the effects of different combinations of consistency and consensus (Study 1) and distinctiveness and consensus (Study 2). Combinations resulting in contradictory (vs. similar) inferences regarding message validity should affect judgmental confidence and, consequently, affect message scrutiny. Study 1 shows that, as predicted, high consistency/low consensus and low consistency/high consensus (incongruent combinations) lead to higher desired confidence and more extensive message elaboration than high consistency/high consensus and low consistency/low consensus (congruent combinations). Similarly, Study 2 reveals heightened message scrutiny given incongruent (vs. congruent) combinations of distinctiveness and consensus. Results are discussed with respect to majority/minority influence processes and multiple source characteristics.     

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.     

Negotiations,image of the other and the process of minority influence

The new theoretical presuppositions used by Moscovici to explain social influence phenomena led him to show that the consistency of behavior can account for the influence of a minority. Experimental data confirm this idea. However, some counter-examples, showing that consistency sometimes induces subjects to refuse compromises, are problematical. To clear up this apparent contradiction, a distinction is made between behavioral style (in the face of the majority norm) and the style of negotiation (in the face of the population the minority wants to influence). A first experiment, then, shows that when two minorities are seen as equally consistent, the minority with a flexible style of negotiation has more influence than the more rigid minority. A second experiment deals with Ss' perception of the source of influence and clarifies the effects of minority negotiations; the links between opinions, opinion change and perception of others are also clarified.     

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.     

Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group

This experimental study was aimed at investigating the mechanisms of influence involved in the two functionally opposed phenomena of innovation and conformity. We have been concerned for several years with the former of these two phenomena because of its intrinsic importance and the limited amount of research devoted to it. In the present article we have attempted not only to analyse the position more thoroughly, but also to compare the effects of innovation with those of conformity. In particular, we have endeavoured to show that behavioural style acts as a general source of influence in the two phenomena under consideration, where manifest judgments are concerned. On the other hand, the latent effects of influence may be different in the two cases of innovation and conformity. To investigate these questions, we developed an experimental design consisting of three parts. The first part was intended to study manifest influence on a quasi-physical judgment based on a cultural truism. The second part was aimed at the study of latent modifications in the perceptual-cognitive code as a result of influence. The third, in the form of a postexperimental questionnaire, was intended to provide information about various aspects, including the perception of the agent of influence by subjects. The main function of the experimental manipulations was to vary the minority or majority relationship of the agent of influence within a group, and its behavioural style, consistent or inconsistent. Our main findings indicate that behavioural consistency is the main factor behind the influence exerted by both majority and minority. But whereas, in conformity, influence is limited to modifying manifest judgments, in innovation, it changes the perceptual-cognitive code underlying such judgments.     

Social Identity and Intergroup Conflict

This paper explores why people identify with social groups and what this identification signifies for their sense of self, status in society and intergroup conflict. We describe various theories of social identity to elucidate ways in which individuals can negotiate their different social identities, and what this means for intergroup relations. We consider the implications for both majority and minority group members, and those from high and low status groups. We show that social identification is an essential part of an individual’s social existence, and that such identification is inextricably related to intergroup conflict. While overarching common identities have been hailed as a possible panacea for conflict, we demonstrate that such identities have differential effects for minority and majority group members. There is a serious tension between the assimilationist preference that the majority wishes for minority members to adopt, and the integrationist position that the minority group themselves prefer. We conclude with a call to focus research efforts on how to balance the needs of the many and the few in pluralist and unequal societies.     

Consistency and modification of judgment

In an investigation of minority influence, it was predicted that a consistent preference for paintings based on nationality by a confederate would cause previously neutral subjects to increase their preference in the direction of this minority viewpoint. Further, it was predicted that ethnic origin of the confederate could be seen as a biasing factor which could diminish influence. Four naive subjects were paired with one experimental confederate who was presented as being of either Italian, German, or unknown ethnic origin. On every trial, subjects were asked to indicate their preference between two paintings, one labeled “Italian” and the other labeled “German.” Labels were actually assigned at random. The confederate consistently chose the Italian or the German paintings on every one of the 19 trials. Results indicate that Control subjects rather than being neutral, exhibited a preference for the Italian paintings. Further, the presence of a confederate who took a consistent standard, whether it was Italian or German, had the effect of making subjects significantly more pro-German (or less pro-Italian) than the control group. The findings are explained on the basis that the German position was actalternative minority position, whereas the Italian position was actually an extreme of the majority position. While the former situation leads to minority influence as predicted, the latter situation appears to have polarized subjects. An alternative in terms of a norm of fairness is suggested, also.     

Policy conflict, policy consistency, and interpersonal understanding

Abstract.— A number of studies have shown that inconsistency in the subjects' policies is a major reason for disagreement in policy conflict. It has been hypothesized that the lack of consistency makes it hard for subjects to understand each other's policies. The present results provided evidence for this hypothesis by showing that subjects asked each other more questions about policy when their policies were less consistent in an experiment where policy consistency was manipulated by varying the predictability of the conflict task.     

Majority influence,minority influence and conversion behavior: A replication

A recent experiment by Moscovici and Personnaz (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1980, 16, 270–282) showed that whereas a majority produces merely compliance, or a change in the individual's verbal responses, a minority induces conversion, or a true change in one's subjective judgments. Because of the theoretical significance of these findings and because of their inconsistency with data from other experiments, an exact replication and extension of this experiment was performed. There was no evidence of compliance in any social influence condition. Instead, and in contrast to Moscovici and Personnaz, both a majority and a minority produced “conversion” behavior. Subjects' behavior is interpreted as the expression of an improved perception, resulting from a heightened level of attention to the object of judgment under social influence conditions.