No guts, no glory: courage, harassment and minority influence
Corresponding Author
Robert S. Baron
University of Iowa, USA
E 11 SSH, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407, USA.Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Robert S. Baron
University of Iowa, USA
E 11 SSH, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1407, USA.Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
To test a courage hypothesis of minority influence, participants read a jury transcript in which a four person majority argued for conviction, while a two person minority argued for acquittal. Across two studies a harassed minority was more persuasive than an un-harassed minority on both obvious and subtle measures of social influence. In certain cases, these effects occurred only when weak minority arguments were used. In-group/out-group status of the minority, manipulated in Study 2, had negligible effects on persuasion. In Study 2, comparisons to a control condition in which all participants argued for acquittal, did not verify the contention that minority influence provokes more careful processing than majority influence despite the fact that harassed minorities were more persuasive on several measures than this type of majority-control. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
REFERENCES
- Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counter-argumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949–964.
- Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5–19.
- Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
- Baron, R. S., & Kerr, N. (2003). Group process, group decision, group action ( 2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
- Bohner, G., Frank, E., & Erb, H. (1998). Heuristic processing of distinctiveness information in minority and majority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 855–860.
- Crano, W. D., & Alvaro, E. M. (1998). The context/comparison model of social influence: Mechanisms, structure, and linkages that underlie indirect attitude change. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 175–202). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
- Crano, W. D., & Chen, X. (1998). The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1437–1450.
- David, B., & Turner, J. C. (1996). Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the out-group an advantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 179–199.
-
De Dreu, C. K. W., &
De Vries, N. K.
(1996).
Differential processing and attitude change following majority versus minority arguments.
British Journal of Social Psychology,
35,
77–90.
10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01084.x Google Scholar
- Hays, W. L. (1963). Statistics. New York: Holt Rinehart & Wintson.
- Kerr, N. L. (2002). When is a minority a minority? Active versus passive minority advocacy and social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 471–483.
-
Kruglanski, A. W., &
Mackie, D.
(1990).
Majority and minority influence: A judgmental process analysis. In
W. Stroebe, &
M. Hewstone (Eds.),
European review of social psychology (Vol.
1, pp.
229–261).
London: Wiley.
10.1080/14792779108401863 Google Scholar
- Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III. (1983). Internalization versus compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 197–215.
- Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41–52.
- Maheswaren, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low motivation settings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13–25.
- Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001a). Conformity and independence in groups: Majorities and minorities. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 210–234). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
- Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001b). Determinants and consequences of cognitive processes in majority and minority influence. In J. P. Forgas, & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Social influence (pp. 315–330). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
- Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 313–330.
- McLeod, P., Baron, R. S., Marti, M. W., & Yoon, K. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face to face and computer mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706–718.
-
Moscovici, S.
(1980).
Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
13, pp.
209–239).
New York: Academic Press.
10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60133-1 Google Scholar
- Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 347–412). New York: Random House.
- Mucchi-Faina, A., & Cicoletti, G. (2006). Divergence vs. ambivalence: Effects of personal relevance on minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 91–104.
- Mugny, G., Butera, F., Sanchez-Mazas, M., & Perez, J. A. (1995). Judgments in conflict: The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In B. Boothe, R. Hirsig, A. Helminger, B. Meier, & R. Volkart (Eds.), Perception, evaluation, interpretation (Swiss Monographs in Psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 160–168). Bern, Switzerland: Huber.
- Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Nemeth, C. J., & Chiles, C. (1988). Modeling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 275–280.
- Perez, J. A., Mugny, G., & Moscovici, S. (1986). Les effets paradoxaux du déni dans l'influence sociale. Cahiers de Psychologie Sociale, 32, 1–14.
- Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) Communication & persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer Verlag.
- Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, M. S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytical review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.
- Worchel, S., Arnold, S., & Baker, M. (1975). The effects of censorship on attitude change: The influence of censor and communication characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 227–239.