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.     

‘Zeitgeist’and minority influence—where is the causality: A comment on Clark (1990)

Does the mood of the time (Zeitgeist) facilitate the influence minorities are able to exercise, or is it itself direct product of minority influence? It is argued, from a social psychological definition of the minority–majority relation, that the former interpretation fails to explain many of the observed effects and in particular the conversion effect. A model is offered that is consistent with the second interpretation.     

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.     

Minority influence and psycho-social identity

Social influence mechanisms are considered as also relevant to intergroup dynamics. In a social influence situation, approaching or retreating from the source's position also involves accepting or rejecting psycho-social identification with the source, implicating self-attribution of the set of characteristics stereotypical of the category or categories to which the source belongs. This conception allows one to account for some of the difficulties encountered by minorities in their attempts to diffuse innovations. An experiment illustrates this conception of influence. It is shown that the influence of a minority is greater when subjects are led to believe that they have in common with the minority numerous category memberships (five out of eight presented) than when they think they share fewer (one out of eight). The difference between these two inductions is, as expected, revealed to be most marked when the source is rigid and for those subjects displaying opinions already relatively close to those of the source and for whom therefore the matter of psycho-social identification is more salient.     

When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations

Studied the impact of individualization and psychologization of minorities upon their influence. In Experiment I, 72 Swiss male and female 15-year-old students read a text on pollution prepared in a 2 × 2 ANOVA-design (one/ two sources, rigid/flexible style) and reported their impression of the content. As below, attitude was measured before and after reading. In Experiment II, 24 second-year Swiss psychology students judged the presumed author of an anti-militaristic tract by adjectives with either merely political or political and psychological connotations. Results indicate that the strong difference between flexible and rigid style appears with one source only, but that independent of the number of sources, a rigid style obtains a less positive image. Change of attitude in moderate subjects judging with political adjectives only vanished in those using psychological adjectives in addition. As a rigid minority only tacks influence when individualized and as psychologization constitutes an ideological functioning of resistance to social change, psychological research, by its current strategies, might be participating in such resistance.