Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence.

Three experiments are reported which examine the effects of consensus information on majority and minority influence. In all experiments two levels of consensus difference were examined; large (82% versus 18%) and small (52% versus 48%). Experiment 1 showed that a majority source had more influence than a minority source, irrespective of consensus level. Experiment 2 examined the cause of this effect by presenting only the source label (‘majority’ versus ‘minority’), only the consensus information (percentages) or both. The superior influence of the majority was again found when either (a) both source label and consensus information were given (replicating Experiment 1) and (b) only consensus information was given, but not when (c) only the source label was given. The results showed majority influence was due to the consensus information indicating more than 50% of the population supported that position. Experiment 3 also manipulated message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to identify whether systematic processing had occurred. Message quality only had an impact with the minority of 18%. These studies show that consensus information has different effects for majority and minority influence. For majority influence, having over 50% support is sufficient to cause compliance while for a minority there are advantages to being numerically small, in terms of leading to detailed processing of its message.

[1]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Majority and minority influence : source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny , 1994 .

[2]  M. Heesacker,et al.  Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking , 1983 .

[3]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[4]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. , 1987 .

[5]  Rosenberg La,et al.  Group size, prior experience, and conformity. , 1961 .

[6]  H. Reis,et al.  The Tyranny of Numbers: Does Group Size Affect Petition Signing? , 1976 .

[7]  P. R. Laughlin.  Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence. , 1988 .

[8]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Increasing the size of the minority: Some gains and some losses , 1977 .

[9]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research , 1993 .

[11]  Anne Maass,et al.  The effects of majority size on minority influence , 1990 .

[12]  C. Dreu,et al.  Numerical support, information processing and attitude change , 1993 .

[13]  W. Crano,et al.  The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. , 1998 .

[14]  Michael R. Solomon,et al.  Conformity as a Function of the Consistency of Positive Self- Evaluation with Being Liked and Being Right , 1983 .

[15]  S. Penrod,et al.  Computer Modeling of Influence in the Jury: The Role of the Consistent Juror , 1983 .

[16]  Gerd Bohner,et al.  Heuristic processing of distinctiveness information in minority and majority influence. , 1998 .

[17]  J. Campbell,et al.  Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. , 1989 .

[18]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[19]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Social Influence And Social Change , 1976 .

[20]  H. Kelley.  The processes of causal attribution. , 1973 .

[21]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[22]  S. Goldberg,et al.  Three situational determinants of conformity to social norms. , 1954, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[23]  B. Latané.  The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[24]  Kidd Js,et al.  Social influence phenomena in a task-oriented group situation. , 1958 .

[25]  S. Wolf,et al.  Manifest and latent influence of majorities and minorities. , 1985 .

[26]  R. Bond,et al.  Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. , 1996 .

[27]  B. Latané,et al.  The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities. , 1981 .

[28]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Toward A Theory of Conversion Behavior , 1980 .

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

[30]  H. Gerard,et al.  Conformity and group size. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[31]  S. Wolf,et al.  Majority and minority influences on restaurant preferences. , 1983 .

[32]  Carol Sherrard,et al.  The power of minorities , 1982 .

[33]  Gabriel Mugny,et al.  Negotiations, image of the other and the process of minority influence† , 1975 .

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

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

[36]  J. Levine,et al.  Anticipated interaction and thought generation : The role of faction size , 1996 .

[37]  Paul H. White,et al.  Stigmatized sources and persuasion: prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[38]  R. Emerson,et al.  Deviation and Rejection: An Experimental Replication , 1954 .

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

[40]  Stamos Papastamou.  Psychologization and processes of minority and majority influence , 1986 .

[41]  B. Kanki,et al.  Patterning of the minority's responses and their influence on the majority , 1974 .

[42]  G. Mugny,et al.  When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations , 1980 .

[43]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[44]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective , 1983 .

[45]  W. Wood,et al.  Minority influence: a meta-analytic review of social influence processes. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[46]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Perception of groups, size of opposition, and social influence. , 1977 .

[47]  J. H. Davis,et al.  Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups: A Test of Three Models , 1990 .

[48]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Social Influence Model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. , 1984 .

[49]  S. Asch.  Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgments , 1951 .

[50]  L. Nordholm.  Effects of Group Size and Stimulus Ambiguity on Conformity , 1975 .

[51]  W. Crano,et al.  The Context/Comparison Model of Social Influence: Mechanisms, Structure, and Linkages that Underlie Indirect Attitude Change , 1997 .

[52]  Gerd Bohner,et al.  Beyond Conflict and Discrepancy: Cognitive Bias in Minority and Majority Influence , 1998 .

[53]  J. Arbuthnot,et al.  Minority Influence: Effects of Size, Conversion, and Sex. , 1982 .

[54]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. , 1999 .

[55]  W. Wood.  Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. , 2000, Annual review of psychology.

[56]  William O. Bearden,et al.  Norm Extremity and Interpersonal Influences on Consumer Conformity , 1995 .