Group members' reactions to opinion deviates and conformists at varying degrees of proximity to decision deadline and of environmental noise.

Four experiments examined freely interacting groups to investigate the determinants of group members' reactions to opinion deviates and conformists. In the 1st experiment, the deviate was rejected more when he or she articulated the dissenting opinion in close proximity to the group-decision deadline versus at an earlier point in the group discussion. In the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th experiment, the deviate was rejected more when the group discussion was carried out in a noisy versus a quiet environment. Furthermore, when the conformist's contributions to the group's attempts to reach consensus were made salient (in Experiment 4), he or she was evaluated more positively in a noisy versus a quiet environment. The results were discussed in terms of the notion that group members' tendency to denigrate a deviate or extol a conformist may be stronger when their need for collective cognitive closure is heightened.

[1]  E. Donnerstein,et al.  Effects of noise and perceived control on ongoing and subsequent aggressive behavior. , 1976, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  J. Beckmann,et al.  Action control : from cognition to behavior , 1985 .

[3]  L. Berkowitz,et al.  Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of media events: a cognitive-neoassociation analysis. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  S. Worchel,et al.  The Social psychology of intergroup relations , 1979 .

[5]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring ☆ , 1983 .

[6]  Anne Maass,et al.  Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. , 1984 .

[7]  J. Kuhl.  Volitional Mediators of Cognition-Behavior Consistency: Self-Regulatory Processes and Action Versus , 1985 .

[8]  S. Moscovici.  Social influence and conformity , 1985 .

[9]  L. Festinger.  Informal social communication. , 1950, Psychological review.

[10]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Current issues in European social psychology , 1983 .

[11]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[12]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  The Freezing and Unfreezing of Impressional Primacy , 1985 .

[13]  G. Paicheler.  Norms and attitude change II: The phenomenon of bipolarization , 1977 .

[14]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Psychology of Group Influence , 1981 .

[15]  C. Nemeth.  Differential contributions of majority and minority influence , 1986 .

[16]  E. Higgins,et al.  Handbook of motivation and cognition : foundations of social behavior , 1991 .

[17]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. , 1987 .

[18]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Group decision rules and the rejection of deviates. , 1979 .

[19]  R. Thayer,et al.  Measurement of Activation through Self-Report , 1967, Psychological reports.

[20]  S. Schachter.  Deviation, rejection, and communication. , 1951, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[21]  Geneviève Paichler.  Norms and attitude change: I. Polarization and styles of behaviour. , 1976 .

[22]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Attitudes and Attitude Change , 1987 .

[23]  E P HOLLANDER,et al.  Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. , 1958, Psychological review.

[24]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  Person Perception by Introverts and Extraverts Under Time Pressure: Effects of Need for Closure , 1991 .

[25]  R. Rosenthal.  Meta-analytic procedures for social research , 1984 .

[26]  R. Thayer.  Toward a psychological theory of multidimensional activation (arousal) , 1978 .

[27]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology. , 1990 .

[28]  John M. Levine,et al.  Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. , 1989 .

[29]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. , 1990 .