Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups Discussing the Death Penalty: A Shared Representations Interpretation

Abstract

Past research has shown that minorities arguing in favor of the majority opinion within a given population (i.e. the ‘Zeitgeist’) are more powerful sources of social influence than minorities arguing against the normative population opinion (i.e. Clark & Maass, 1988a and b; Paicheler,1977). We studied the Zeitgeist effect within the context of freely interacting groups discussing the death penalty. In direct contrast to past research, minorities arguing against the death penalty Zeitgeist were more powerful sources of social influence than those arguing in favor of it. Analyses of conversation content and thought-listing data suggest that minorities arguing against the death penalty may have been more influential because they were appealing to a superordinate shared belief system within their respective groups.

The Roles of Shared Stereotypes and Shared Processing Goals on Mock Jury Decision Making

“…The presence of a shared task representation can greatly influence the group outcome such that alternatives that are consistent with the shared task representation tend to be favored over those that are inconsistent with it (Tindale & Kameda, 2000). Of interest, this is the case even when the member expressing preference for the shared task representation is in the numerical minority (Smith, Dykema-Engblade, Walker, Niven, & McGough, 2000).…”

Accentuation of information processes and biases in group judgments integrating base-rate and case-specific information

“…Tindale et al argue that similar processes can emerge when group members share background knowledge or task representations that have implications for the response alternatives under consideration. For example, Smith, Dykema-Engblade, Walker, Niven, and McGough (2000) composed groups with majorities favoring the death penalty in a study of group-mediated attitude change. Minority members who used logic to try and sway the majority toward anti-death penalty sentiments were ineffective.…”

Adding minority status to a source of conflict: an examination of influence processes and product quality in dyads

“…This happens most frequently when the task is intellective in nature (i.e., has a demonstrably correct solution). However, there is evidence that judgmental tasks can be framed in such a way that certain solutions seem more correct than others (Smith et al, 2000;Smith, Tindale and Steiner, 1998). Although choosing a political candidate, on the face of it, is a judgmental rather than an intellective task, support for candidate B may have been more easily framed as the ''correct'' decision within the discussion dyads.…”

“…It is important to note, however, that the small group decision making and problem solving literature is replete with examples of direct minority influence. Minority impact is enhanced when minority sources of influence can easily demonstrate the veracity of the position they are arguing (Smith, Dykema-Engblade, Walker, Niven, & McGough, 2000;Smith, Tindale, & Anderson, 2001). This happens most frequently when the task is intellective in nature (i.e., has a demonstrably correct solution).…”