The phenomenology of minority–majority status: Effects on innovation in argument generation

In three experiments, we manipulated participants' perceived numerical status and compared the originality and creativity of arguments generated by members of numerical minorities and majorities. Independent judges, blind to experimental conditions, rated participants' written arguments. In Studies 1 and 2, we found that participants assigned to a numerical minority generated more original arguments when advocating their own position than did numerical majorities. In Study 3, an equal‐factions control group was included in the design, and all participants were instructed to argue for a counter‐attitudinal position. Those in the numerical minority generated more creative arguments than those in both the majority and equal‐factions conditions, but not stronger arguments. We propose cognitive and social processes that may underlie our obtained effects and discuss implications for minority influence research. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Perceptions of ethnic discrimination by minority and majority early adolescents in the Netherlands

This research investigates perceptions of discrimination among ethnic majority and minority group early adolescents (aged between 10 and 12 years) living in the multi‐ethnic context of the Netherlands. In two studies (N = 679 and N = 2630), personal and group discrimination was examined in terms of name‐calling and social exclusion, and in relation to ethnic identity and family allocentrism. All early adolescents reported more group than personal discrimination. The personal‐group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD) was found independently of ethnic group, gender, allocentrism, and ethnic identity. Hence, the PGDD seems a more general phenomenon that already exists among early adolescents and across different domains. However, minority group participants perceived far more discrimination overall than majority group early adolescents, and the Turkish participants reported more discrimination than the Moroccan and Surinamese early adolescents. Furthermore, family allocentrism was positively related to perceived discrimination among all ethnic groups in Study 2 and among the Dutch in Study 1. In agreement with ethnic identity development models, strength of ethnic identity was not related to perceived discrimination. Ethnic identity was, however, positively related to allocentrism. In both studies, ethnic minority group participants had higher scores for allocentrism and for ethnic identity than majority group participants. In addition, boys had stronger ethnic identity than girls and ethnic identity was negatively associated with perceived discrimination for the boys but not for the girls. It is concluded that in order to understand early adolescents' perception of discrimination it is necessary to pay attention to basic (cognitive) tendencies that cross ethnic lines, to cultural and status differences between the majority group and ethnic minorities as a category and between ethnic minority groups, and to within‐group differences or individual level variables.     

Effects of Perceived Consensus on Selective Reinforcement of Other People's Stated Opinions

Three studies tested whether perceived consensus affects selective reinforcement of other people's stated opinions on important social issues. Participants who perceived relatively high consensus for their opinions were more likely than participants who perceived low consensus to reward another person's agreeing statements more than the person's disagreeing statements about gun control (Study 1) and to prolong interrogating another student about abortion (Study 2). In Study 3, participants who were told they were in a two-thirds majority regarding gay scout troop leaders were more likely than participants who were told they were in a one-third minority to practice selective reinforcement. The results have implications for settings in which interrogators believe they can exercise power over the person who is being questioned.     

Resisting persuasion by illegitimate means: a metacognitive perspective on minority influence

The present research tests a new metacognitive perspective on resistance in minority influence situations. It is proposed that when people initially resist persuasive messages from sources in the numerical minority, they can lose attitude certainty if they perceive that they have based their attitudes on the source's minority status and also believe this is an illegitimate basis for resistance. In three studies, participants were presented with a message from a minority source. In Study 1, participants became less certain of their attitudes after resisting this message. In Study 2, this effect only emerged when participants were led to believe they had based their attitudes on the source's minority status and this was an illegitimate thing to do. In Study 3, this effect was shown to have implications for persuasion in response to a second message. The implications of these findings for classic minority influence effects are discussed.     

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.     

Property and prejudice: How racial attitudes and social‐evaluative concerns shape property appraisals

Property evaluations rarely occur in the absence of social context. However, no research has investigated how intergroup processes related to prejudice extend to concepts of property. In the present research, we propose that factors such as group status, prejudice and pressure to mask prejudiced attitudes affect how people value the property of racial ingroup and outgroup members. In Study 1, White American and Asian American participants were asked to appraise a hand‐painted mug that was ostensibly created by either a White or an Asian person. Asian participants demonstrated an ingroup bias. White participants showed an outgroup bias, but this effect was qualified. Specifically, among White participants, higher racism towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of mugs created by Asian people. Study 2 revealed that White Americans' prejudice towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of the mug created by an Asian person only when participants were highly concerned about conveying a non‐prejudiced personal image. Our results suggest that, ironically, prejudiced majority group members evaluate the property of minority group members whom they dislike more favourably. The current findings provide a foundation for melding intergroup relations research with research on property and ownership.     

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.     

Belonging to a majority reduces the immediate need threat from ostracism in individuals with a high need to belong

Ostracism—being ignored and excluded—threatens the basic human needs for belonging, self‐esteem, control, and meaningful existence. This work introduces belonging to a majority as a buffer against the immediate negative impact of ostracism on basic needs for individuals with a high need to belong, for whom social groups are especially relevant. Three studies show that for individuals high in the need to belong, need threat was attenuated by membership in a majority group, but not by membership in a minority group (Studies 1 and 3) or a group of unknown size (Study 2). By contrast, individuals low in the need to belong—who place less importance on group membership in general—did not benefit from belonging to a majority group. The general pattern replicated across different manipulations of group membership and social exclusion, with two measures of need threat, and with participants from two different countries.     

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.     

Hesitation in communication: Does minority status delay responses?

Past studies indicated that people in a minority (vs. majority) position are slower to express their public/political opinion, and the larger the difference between the size of the two positions, the slower the response. Bassili termed this the minority‐slowness effect (MSE). In the current study, two experiments were conducted to demonstrate that MSE extends to people's understanding of utterances and explored the cognitive basis for this. Participants were asked to judge if an utterance is a ‘direct’ or an ‘indirect’ expression. The results show that participants in the minority (vs. majority) took longer to respond, and the larger the difference between the size of majority and minority, the longer the response latency (Study 1a). Furthermore, participants were aware of their own minority position (Study 1b). In Study 2, when participants were deprived of cognitive resources, MSE disappeared, presumably because participants lack the cognitive resources required to conform to utterance interpretation as favoured by the majority.     

Young children's responses to media representations of intergroup threat and ethnicity

Two studies are reported in which ethnic majority children's reactions to media representations of ethnic minorities are examined. In Study 1, 20 white Scottish 6‐year‐olds viewed short television stories in which white or ethnic minority children were depicted as hostile to the participants’ in‐group (threat present) or not (threat absent). A strong effect of threat on liking was obtained but no effect of ethnicity of target and no interaction. In Study 2, 4‐ and 6‐year‐old white Scottish children viewed PowerPoint displays in which Scottish people were shown only as white (traditional version) or as ethnically diverse (multicultural version). Intergroup threat was manipulated. Again, a strong effect of threat was obtained. However, when threat was absent, participants exposed to the traditional condition liked the white out‐group more than the multi‐ethnic out‐group, while participants exposed to the multicultural condition liked the multi‐ethnic out‐group more than the white out‐group. The results are interpreted as consistent with the predictions of Social Identity Development Theory.     

Doing is for thinking! Stereotype activation by stereotypic movements

Three studies demonstrate that stereotypic movements activate the corresponding stereotype. In Study 1, participants who were unobtrusively induced to move in the portly manner that is stereotypic of overweight people subsequently ascribed more overweight-stereotypic characteristics to an ambiguous target person than did control participants. In Study 2, participants who were unobtrusively induced to move in the slow manner that is stereotypic of elderly people subsequently ascribed more elderly-stereotypic characteristics to a target than did control participants. In Study 3, participants who were induced to move slowly were faster than control participants to respond to elderly-stereotypic words in a lexical decision task. Using three different movement inductions, two different stereotypes, and two classic measures of stereotype activation, these studies converge in demonstrating that stereotypes may be activated by stereotypic movements.     

Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status

Three experiments examined the extent to which attitudes following majority and minority influence are resistant to counter-persuasion. In Experiment 1, participants’ attitudes were measured after being exposed to two messages which argued opposite positions (initial pro-attitudinal message and subsequent, counter-attitudinal counter-message). Attitudes following minority endorsement of the initial message were more resistant to a (second) counter-message than attitudes following majority endorsement of the initial message. Experiment 2 replicated this finding when the message direction was reversed (counter-attitudinal initial message and pro-attitudinal counter-message) and showed that the level of message elaboration mediated the amount of attitude resistance. Experiment 3 included conditions where participants received only the counter-message and showed that minority-source participants had resisted the second message (counter-message) rather than being influenced by it. These results show that minority influence induces systematic processing of its arguments which leads to attitudes which are resistant to counter-persuasion.     

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.     

The Endorsement of Minority Rights: The Role of Group Position, National Context, and Ideological Beliefs

The present research was conducted in the Netherlands and used an experimental design to examine the endorsement of minority rights among Turkish and Kurdish participants in two framed, national contexts: the Netherlands and Turkey. In the Dutch context, each group is a minority, whereas in the Turkish context the Kurds are an oppressed national minority and the Turks are the national majority. The results showed that the Turks were less in favor of minority rights in the Turkish context than in the Dutch context, whereas the Kurds were more in favor of minority rights in the Turkish than in the Dutch context. In addition, the endorsement of minority rights was related to beliefs about majority rule, state unity, and ingroup identification, as well as to cultural diversity and perceived pervasive discrimination. The associations with the former three measures differed between the two groups and the two national contexts, whereas the latter two measures had main effects on the endorsement of minority rights.     

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.     

Dual identity,in‐group projection,and out‐group feelings among ethnic minority groups

This study extends research on dual identity and in‐group projection by considering category prototypicality and indispensability, and by focusing on ethnic minority members and their attitudes towards the native majority and minority out‐groups. Among a sample of 491 participants of the three largest immigrant‐origin groups in the Netherlands, it was found that the minority in‐group was seen as relatively more prototypical and relatively more indispensable for the national category in comparison with minority out‐groups, but not in comparison with the native majority. In support of the in‐group projection model, stronger dual identity was associated with higher relative in‐group prototypicality and relative in‐group indispensability in comparison with the majority and, via both these relative perceptions, to a less positive attitude towards the native Dutch. In addition and in support of the common in‐group identity model, dual identity was associated with more positive minority out‐group feelings via higher minority out‐group prototypicality and indispensability. It is concluded that dual identity can have both positive and negative consequences for intergroup relations depending on perceived (relative) prototypicality and indispensability, and depending on whether the out‐group is the majority or other minorities.     

Ask a busy person: attentional myopia and helping

According to an oft‐quoted piece of folk wisdom, if one wants something accomplished, the best person to ask is a busy person. We tested a version of this proposition in two studies. Study 1 exposed participants to a helping request in which cues promoting the relevant behavior were made more salient than those inhibiting it. Study 2 featured a request in which inhibiting cues were made more salient than cues promoting the behavior. In both studies, participants who were “busied” by high cognitive load showed more influence of the dominant behavioral pressure than did participants under minimal load. The results suggest that busy people can respond more to a helping appeal, but only when cues facilitating helping are more salient than those discouraging it.     

Affect Is Greater Than,Not Equal to,Condition: Condition and Person Effects in Affective Priming Paradigms

Affective primes may impact ensuing behavior through condition and person effects. However, previous research has not experimentally disentangled these two sources of influence in affective priming paradigms. In the current research, we simultaneously examine the influence of condition factors, in terms of prime valence, and person factors, in terms of affect reactivity and personality. In both studies, undergraduate participants (total N = 174) were primed with either positive or negative affective stimuli (words, Study 1; pictures, Study 2) prior to judging the likability of a neutral target (Arabic characters, Study 1; inkblots, Study 2). Although we did observe between‐condition differences for positive and negative primes, person‐level effects were more consistent predictors of target ratings. Affect reactivity (affect Time 2, controlling Time 1) to the primes predicted evaluative judgments, even in the absence of condition effects. In addition, the personality traits of Neuroticism (Study 1) and behavioral inhibition system sensitivity (Study 2) predicted evaluative judgments of neutral targets following negative affective primes. With effects for condition, affect reactivity, and personality, our results suggest that affective primes influence ensuing behaviors through both informational and affective means. Research using affective priming methodologies should take into account both condition and person‐level effects.     

Trust and Acceptance in Response to References to Group Membership: Minority and Majority Perspectives on Cross‐Group Interactions1

This research examined anticipated feelings of trust and acceptance in cross‐group interactions among members of ethnic minority and majority groups, depending on whether an out‐group member referred to their group membership. In Study 1, Asian, Latino, and White participants read scenarios describing interactions between them and an in‐group member, an out‐group member, or an out‐group member who referred to their group membership. Participants from each group responded more negatively toward interactions with out‐group members when they referred to group membership. These findings were replicated in Study 2 with samples of Black and White participants, also showing that anticipated prejudice partially mediated the effects of out‐group members' references to group membership on feelings of trust and acceptance. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of facilitating intergroup communication and conversations about group differences.