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.     

Ingroup and outgroup minorities: Differential impact upon public and private responses

The experiment which is presented in this paper was designed to overcome some of the problems associated with previous research investigating the effects of social categorization and minority influence. Sixty-eight fourteen-year-old British Secondary School pupils indicated their attitudes towards a 'grant for pupils' before and after reading a text which advocated a minority position. The text was attributed as being the work of either pupils from their own school (ingroup minority) or from a school they discriminated against (outgroup minority). Responses were either made in ‘public’ (by telling subjects that other pupils would see their responses) or in ‘private’ (by subjects putting their responses into a ‘ballot box’). The results showed that on public responses ingroup minorities had more influence than outgroup minorities while there was no difference on private responses. Also, greater change occurred when responses were made in private than in public. These results are compatible with the intergroup analysis of minority influence.     

Minority influence and social categorization: A replication

The effects of ingroup and outgroup minorities upon public and private levels of influence was examined. The results show that whilst ingroup minorities have greater influence in public, outgroup minorities can have as much, if not more influence than ingroup minorities when responses are made in private. These results are consistent with previous research and support the social identijkation model of social influence.     

Social categorization in minority influence: The case of homosexuality

Three experiments were conducted in order to compare the influence of ingroup and outgroup minorities and to assess the role of Zeitgeist perception in minority influence. The results confirmed that ingroup minorities are more influential than outgroup minorities. This overall finding was observed in two different experimental paradigms, using either a small group setting in which subjects interacted with the minority or the simultaneous social influence paradigm in which both influence sources impinge simultaneously (via written information) upon the subjects. These results were supportive of Tajfel's social identity theory while contradicting Kelley's augmenting/discounting principle. Finally, subjects' perception of the Zeitgeist was unrelated to the magnitude of 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.     

How context-independent is the outgroup homogeneity effect? A response to Bartsch and Judd

Bartsch and Judd (1993) argue that outgroup homogeneity effects occur independently of any tendency for members of minority groups to see their ingroup as more homogeneous than the majority outgroup. This argument is based on evidence of an underlying outgroup homogeneity effect in a study which purports to unconfound the roles of judged group size and ingroup–outgroup judgement by presenting subjects first with a small or large ingroup (or outgroup) and then a small comparison outgroup (or ingroup). However, from the perspective of self-categorization theory (SCT), such a procedure actually introduces a confound as SCT predicts that when an ingroup is judged first it should be perceived as relatively heterogeneous due to the intragroup nature of this judgemental context. Close examination of Bartsch and Judd's data bears this point out: the tendency to see the ingroup as less homogeneous than the outgroup when the ingroup was judged first was extinguished when the ingroup was judged second even when the judged groups were of equal size. Consistent with SCT, this re-analysis suggests that manifestations of outgroup homogeneity are not independent of contextual factors which determine the relative appropriateness of category-based perception of ingroup and outgroup.     

Majority — minority status and perceived ingroup variability revisited

Social identity theory predicts that ingroup members should see their group as more homogeneous when confronted by a large and presumably dominant outgroup. This prediction has been supported in a series of recent studies, all of which purport to show that the usual ingroup—outgroup difference in perceived variability, i.e. outgroup homogeneity, is reversed when the ingroup is in a minority position. In all of these studies, however, the ingroup—outgroup distinction has been confounded with the size of the target group judged. The present study was conducted to overcome this confound. Subjects judged both the ingroup and outgroup, under one of two different orders, and the first group judged varied in size across subjects while the size of the second group was held constant. This permitted comparisons of the perceived variability of the second judged group (be it the ingroup or outgroup) when it followed the judgment of either a larger or equal size first group. Consistent with social identity theory, ingroups were judged as less variable when judged after a large outgroup than after a small one. This was true, however, only on measures of perceived dispersion and not on measures of perceived stereotypicality. On both sorts of measures, however, overall outgroup homogeneity was found, over and above the difference due to the comparison of the ingroup with a large or small outgroup.     

Intragroup differentiation in terms of ingroup and outgroup attributes

An experiment (n = 36) was conducted to test the hypothesis that attribute typicality moderates intragroup differentiation. The predicted reversal from perceived relative ingroup homogeneity on typical ingroup attributes to perceived relative outgroup homogeneity on typical outgroup attributes was confirmed for both homogeneity measures (standard deviation and probability of differentiation). But the ingroup homogeneity effects were more reliable than the outgroup homogeneity effects. Relative ingroup size (minority versus majority) was included in the experimental design as a between-subjects factor but did not qualify the reversal of perceived relative homogeneity.     

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.     

Ethnic group preferences and the evaluation of ethnic identity among adolescents in The Netherlands.

The relationship between the evaluation of ethnic identity and ethnic group preferences among Dutch and that among ethnic minority adolescents was examined. It was predicted that a more positive attitude toward one's own ethnic identity would be associated with a higher level of ingroup preference. This prediction was confirmed, and this led to the question of how inter-ethnic relations and a positive ethnic identity could be stimulated simultaneously. Not only the ingroup aspect of ethnic group relations was studied but also the outgroup aspect. As members of the high-status group, the Dutch subjects showed a higher level of ingroup preference, compared with ethnic minorities. Also, own-group identification and own-group-oriented patterns of preferences among the Dutch subjects were found to be accompanied by the rejection of minority groups. No such tendency was found among adolescents from ethnic minorities.     

Maintaining social identity in a mixed-gender setting: Minority/majority status and cooperative/competitive feedback

This study tested the applicability of Tajfel and Turner's (1986) Social Identity Theory (SIT) to cooperative behavior in a mixed-gender setting. SIT suggests that as a “socially subordinate” group in a male-dominated society, women, when their gender is in the numerical minority, will engage in social competition in an attempt to enhance social identity. However, gender-based socialization may encourage men toward competition and women toward cooperation, regardless of group gender composition. In this study, male and female subjects were assigned to a six-person mixed-gender group in which their gender was either in the numerical minority or majority, and performed an interactive task under either cooperative or competitive feedback. An interaction of sex and feedback showed males in the cooperative feedback condition responded more competitively than did males in the competitive feedback condition, while females were equally cooperative in both feedback conditions. Feedback also interacted with the numerical ingroup/outgroup gender balance. While competitive feedback elicited little variation in subjects' responses across the ingroup/outgroup balance variable, the cooperative condition elicited greater competition from subjects in the numerical minority and greater cooperation from those in the numerical majority. Results were interpreted as partial support for SIT, while stressing the need for further investigation into gender as a unique influence on intergroup behavior.     

Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups

In this paper, we examined how identification with urban districts as a common ingroup identity and perceived ingroup prototypicality influence the attitudes of residents toward other ethnic groups in their neighborhood. The overall conclusion of two field studies (N = 214 and N = 98) is that for majority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification with an overarching identity and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as low in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 1 and 2). Conversely, for minority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as high in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 2). Outgroup prototypicality did not moderate the relation between identification and outgroup attitudes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Perceptions of Ingroup and Outgroup Variability: A Meta-Analytic Integration

This article reports the results of a meta-analytic integration of previous research on perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability. The following patterns were observed: The tendency to perceive greater variability for the ingroup relative to the variability perceived for the outgroup (relative heterogeneity) was demonstrated to be a significant but small effect. The basic relative heterogeneity effect is the result of a small shift away from the midpoint of the scale toward homogeneity for the outgroup, coupled with a smaller, slight shift away from the midpoint of the scale toward heterogeneity for the ingroup, in addition, perceptions of group variability were demonstrated to vary in predictable and interesting ways. For example, relative heterogeneity decreases as the relative size of the ingroup decreases, producing a relative homogeneity effect on the part of small minorities. Relative heterogeneity is strongest when the ingroup and outgroup comprise real, enduring groups, and weakest when the ingroup and outgroup comprise artificial, laboratory-created groups. Discussion considers the implications of these results for the various proposed mediating mechanisms for perceptions of group variability, and for an understanding of the phenomenology of being in a group.     

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.     

Coalition or derogation? How perceived discrimination influences intraminority intergroup relations

Five studies explored how perceived societal discrimination against one's own racial group influences racial minority group members' attitudes toward other racial minorities. Examining Black-Latino relations, Studies 1a and 1b showed that perceived discrimination toward oneself and one's own racial group may be positively associated with expressed closeness and common fate with another racial minority group, especially if individuals attribute past experiences of discrimination to their racial identity rather than to other social identities (Study 1b). In Studies 2-5, Asian American (Studies 2, 3, and 4) and Latino (Study 5) participants were primed with discrimination against their respective racial groups (or not) and completed measures of attitudes toward Black Americans. Participants primed with racial discrimination expressed greater positivity toward and perceived similarity with Blacks than did participants who were not primed. These results suggest, consistent with the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), that salient discrimination against one's own racial group may trigger a common "disadvantaged racial minority" (ingroup) identity that engenders more positive attitudes toward and feelings of closeness toward other racial minorities.     

Intergroup Perceptions and Attitudes toward Immigrants in a Culturally Plural Society

The research examined perceptions of Chinese immigrants held by New Zealanders of European and Maori descent. The study (N = 318) adopted an intergroup perspective to test a predictive model of attitudes toward immigrants. It was based on a nation‐wide survey with prospective respondents randomly selected from the New Zealand Electoral rolls. Findings revealed that Maori differed from their European counterparts in predictable ways, reporting more relative deprivation and greater perceived threat, and holding more negative outgroup attitudes. Less contact and greater perceived threat predicted more negative attitudes toward immigrants; in addition, when intergroup boundaries were permeable, the link between perceived threat and negative attitudes was stronger in Maori than New Zealand Europeans. While intergroup relations are traditionally analysed in a dual group formation involving a privileged “dominant” ingroup and disadvantaged “minority” immigrant outgroup, the current research suggests the need to advance beyond this dichotomy to a more inclusive approach and to consider the interface between the historical and political milieux in specific national contexts.     

In matters of opinion, what matters is the group: Minority group members’ emotional reactions to messages about identity expression

Two studies investigated the reactions of minority group members to messages about identity expression by ingroup and outgroup sources. Our main hypothesis was that compared to ingroup sources, outgroup sources arouse more anger when they argue for identity suppression. In the first study homosexuals evaluated an outgroup source arguing for identity suppression more negatively than an ingroup source, felt more threatened by this source and as a result, experienced stronger feelings of anger towards this source. The second study among members of a language-based minority replicated and extended these findings. Furthermore we showed that the anger that is experienced towards an outgroup source causes a willingness to change the opinion of this source. When ingroup or outgroup sources supported identity expression, evaluations and experience of anger did not differ in both studies. The importance of a source’s group membership in reactions to opinions about one’s group is discussed.     

Conversion theory and simultaneous majority/minority influence: Can reactance offer an alternative explanation?

This study tested whether reactance theory can account for private acceptance of a minority opinion under simultaneous majority/minority influence (reactance against majority rather than conversion toward minority). Subjects were either exposed to simultaneous majority /minority influence or to a majority source only. As predicted by conversion theory, subjects moved away from the majority only in private and in the presence of a consistent minority. In the absence of a consistent minority, subjects accepted the majority opinion in private, ruling out reactance as an alternative explanation.     

Interpreting references to group membership in context: feelings about intergroup contact depending on who says what to whom

Contact research often manipulates the salience of group membership, with little consideration of how such manipulations affect feelings toward intergroup contact, and how contextual features may moderate its effects. We propose that feelings toward intergroup contact may not depend solely on the degree to which group membership appears to be salient, but on how references to group membership are interpreted in the intergroup context. Two experimental studies examined how references to group membership may be interpreted differently depending on their source (ingroup or outgroup) and the recipient (minority or majority), and how these interpretations predict feelings toward cross‐group interactions. In Study 1, references to group membership were interpreted more negatively from an outgroup source among majority participants, yet a reverse pattern was observed for minority participants. Similar effects were obtained in Study 2, yet participants tended to respond negatively when an outgroup member referred specifically to their group. Moreover, feelings about cross‐group interactions were predicted only (Study 1) and strongly (Study 2) by the degree to which outgroup members' references were interpreted negatively, beyond what was predicted by participants' general awareness of group membership. Implications of these findings for future research on contact and salience are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Intergroup relations in a changing political context: the case of veiled and unveiled university students in Turkey

The present study investigated (a) the underlying dimensions of different measures related to identification, categorization, ingroup bias and contact conditions; and (b) relations between two groups related to an important social controversy over time. Questionnaires were administered to veiled (minority) and unveiled (majority) Turkish female university students during the fall of 1996 and the spring of 1998. Results of factor analysis revealed three factors, namely: tolerance, including perceived outgroup homogeneity, ingroup bias, and individuation; identification, including identification and perceived ingroup homogeneity; and contact conditions, including ratings of pleasantness, frequency and feelings of anxiety. Comparison of groups over time revealed that although the minority group reported lower tolerance for outgroups than the majority the pattern was reversed in 1998. In addition, the majority reported greater negative contact conditions of contact in 1998 than in 1996. No time‐related differences were revealed for the minority with respect to reports of contact conditions. Results were discussed with respect to sensitivity of group relations to social context and to Social Identity Theory. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.