Indirect majority and minority influence: An exploratory study

Abstract

This paper is the result of the work carried out by the group above listed during the EAESP Summer School (August 1989) organized by John Rijsman at the University of filburg, The Netherlands. We wish to thank all the University staff, and specially the Rijsrnans for their invaluable help in the realization of this study. The idea of using the perceptual paradigm designed for this experiment is due to William D. Crano, on the occasion of the Third Workshop on Minority Influence, Perugia, June 1989. This study is part of a research project sponsored by the Fonds National Suisse de la Recherche Scientifique in the form of a grant to G. Mugny and J. A. Peru. V. Brandstatter et al. AbstractIn a 2 x 2 design, 8s subjects were asked to estimate the size of angles (direct influence) that were either 90 or 85O. after being confronted with incorrect judgements of a majority (88 per cent) or a minority (12 per cent) of people estimating the angles at SO".Additionally, pre-and post-test measures were used to establish indirect influence on subjects' judgements pertaining to acute angles (i.e. on the estimation of the length of lines constituting the angles, and on the imaginary weight of jigures represented by these angles). Overall, little direct influence is observed. This may parrly be due to the introduction of a denial of the credibility of the source in all conditions. In fact, some evidence of direct influence is only found in the majority4So angles condition. An instance of indirect influence (on the estimation of length of lines) appeared as the resuli of a majority stance when the angles in the experimental phase were 909 When these angles were 8.Y. indirect minority influence (on the estimation of weight ofjigures) was observed. These eflects had been predicted on the basis of the hypothesis stating that indirect majority influence would be possible when subjects expected consensus on the correct response (in the 90" angles condition), without being able to reach consensus at the manifest level (because of the denial and the restriction imposed by the clear shape of 90" angles). Indirect minority influence was hypothesized to be stronger in a situation that allows for diverse responses (i.e. for 85" angles).

Motivations underlying attitudes: regulatory focus and majority versus minority support

“…For instance, majority and minority groups may induce different levels of influence (e.g. direct versus indirect measures; Brandstätter et al, 1991;Crano & Alvaro, 1998). Numeric support may also activate different styles of information processing such as convergent versus divergent thinking (De Vries, De Dreu, Gordijn, & Schuurman, 1996;Nemeth, 1986), or confirmatory versus informatory strategies to test hypotheses (Butera & Mugny, 2001).…”

Differential processing and attitude change following majority versus minority arguments

“…Still other studies tend to provide subjects with statements forwarded by a minority group of activists (e.g. Mugny, 1982;Mugny & Perez, 1991). These variations in research paradigms may to a certain extent account for the different results sometimes obtained.…”

“…De Dreu & De Vries (1993) combined Nemeth's theory with qualifications inspired by Mackie's work and research findings by Mugny (Mugny, 1982;Mugny & Perez, 1991). De Dreu & De Vries argued that a lack of external reasons to engage in systematic processing of the message leads to convergent processing of the majority message because the discrepancy with a majority is motivating in itself, but to heuristic rejection of a minority message.…”

The coordination of problem solving strategies: When low competence sources exert more influence on task processing than high competence sources

“…Some results indeed suggest a similarity between minority influence dynamics and the way low competence sources achieve influence (Quiamzade, Mugny, Falomir, & Chatard, 2006). As an example, it has been found that a minority source has a higher impact than a majority source on novel hypotheses generation (Butera, Mugny, Legrenzi, & Pérez, 1996), just as it has been shown that a low competence source has a higher impact than a high competence source again on novel hypothesis generation (Butera, Caverni, & Rossi, 2005, Experiments 1 and 2). The similarity of these dynamics allow to consider that the influence of a low competence source can derive first from a validation process involved in the close examination of the source's proposals (Moscovici, 1980; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980), and/or second from divergent thinking (Nemeth, 1986).…”