Minority influence

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minority influence (lat. Minor "the smaller one") describes the social influence of a minority on the majority . In politics , art and science , minority influence can bring about progress and renewal.

Numerical and Social Minorities

Minorities can be distinguished between numerical and social minorities.

Numerical minorities belong to the same social category as the majority but have a different opinion than the majority. Politicians who have a different opinion on certain issues (e.g. migration , health policy) than the majority of their colleagues represent, for example, a numerical minority.

Social minorities have a different opinion than the majority and belong to a different social category than the majority. Social minorities are, for example, homosexual or religious minorities.

The influence of numerical minorities is stronger than the influence of social minorities. This has been proven in several studies.

Behavioral styles

If the minority consistently and invariably takes their point of view that deviates from the majority , this can cause the majority to become insecure and willing to give up its point of view. The influence of the minority is not limited to an adjustment in behavior, but also influences latent judgment processes and thus leads to real changes of opinion and judgment. (Herkner, W. 1996, p. 463) The latent effect is stronger than the effect shown in behavior. A latent effect can be seen in this context in that the majority members unconsciously adjust their opinion in the direction of the minority opinion due to the minority influence. Moscovici, Lage and Naffrechoux (1969) confirm these hypotheses with a color experiment and the associated follow-up examinations. (Herkner, W. 1996, p. 463). The test subjects were shown blue slides in groups; in the groups in which a minority consistently stated that the slide was green (although it was clearly blue), a proportion of the test subjects named the color of the slide as green.

In a similar experiment by Moscovici and Lage (1976), in which there were three other experimental conditions, it became clear that a consistent individual who deviates from the majority opinion has just as little influence on the majority as an inconsistent minority, and that a consistent minority exactly as much influence as an inconsistent majority has. A latent change of opinion was only achieved when the majority met a consistent minority. The members of the consistent minority were experienced as more confident in their judgment, but not more competent. (Herkner, W. 1996, p. 465)

A consistent minority can, however, also appear repulsive because it gives the impression of rigidity . In a color experiment by Nemeth, Swedlung and Kanki (1974), “compromising” minorities (in the experiment there was a consistent approximation of the majority's judgment) achieved greater influence than a “stubborn” consistent minority.

One can differentiate between behavioral style and negotiation style. The style of behavior can be consistent or inconsistent. In contrast to the inconsistent behavior style, with the consistent behavior style one takes one opinion without exception. The negotiating style can be flexible or rigid. A rigid style of negotiation is characterized by the insistence on an extreme point of view without concessions. A flexible negotiating style is more willing to compromise and more moderate than a rigid negotiating style. Not always, but often a consistently flexible minority was more influential than a consistently rigid minority. Rigidity cannot change a directly addressed opinion, but it can influence related attitudes. (Herkner, W. 1996, p. 466)

In the case of high group cohesion (of the whole group), the influence of the minority members on the majority members is greater than in the case of low group cohesion. A high level of group cohesion is measured by the fact that the members of a group assess each other positively.

Conversion theory

Moscovici's conversion theory tries to explain why a majority only produces a superficial behavioral adjustment and a minority produces a real change in attitudes. According to this theory, the majority opinion triggers an interpersonal conflict leading to processes of social comparison , which leads to a superficial adaptation of behavior. This happens without thinking deeply about the factual problem. The minority opinion leads to a cognitive conflict that triggers a validation process . This means that one thinks about which point of view is the right one, weighing up arguments and counter-arguments with regard to the opinion of the minority. The stronger the cognitive conflict, the more likely it is that attitudes will change in the direction of minority opinion.

Findings contradicting conversion theory

Mackie's (1987) research results contradict Moscovici's conversion theory. The conversion theory says that minority influence in particular triggers thorough information processing. Mackie's research shows that majority opinions in particular are thoroughly processed. In her study, she operationalized variables such as the strength of the conflict and the quality of the arguments . The majority represents the opinion that is most likely to be correct and a positive identification. This leads to a thorough information processing of the majority opinion. When the same opinion comes from a minority, it gets little attention. Prerequisites for thorough information processing are that the recipient has the necessary skills and motivation to process the information and that the quality of the arguments is high.

Mullen's theory

This theory addresses differences in the behavior and experience of majority and minority members. The ratio of the size of the subgroup (minority or majority) to which one does not belong to the overall group (other-total ratio) is the decisive factor for the development of self-awareness and behavior control in minority and majority members. The theory states that minority members' self-awareness and control of their own behavior increases the larger the majority is compared to the minority. The self-awareness and control of their own behavior by majority members decreases the smaller the minority is compared to the majority. In addition, it was shown that the willingness to engage in socially desirable behavior such as conformity and altruism among minority members increases the smaller the minority is in relation to the majority and that the willingness to engage in socially undesirable behavior such as laziness and aggressiveness increases among members of the majority, the greater the majority Compared to the minority is.

Two examples:

If a minority consisting of five people, for example, meets a majority consisting of fifteen people, a higher level of self-awareness, more controlled personal behavior and a greater willingness to behave socially desirable can be observed among the minority members than if the majority were off only ten people would exist.

If a majority consisting of twelve people, for example, meets a minority consisting of four people, less self-awareness, more uncontrolled behavior and a greater willingness to engage in socially undesirable behavior can be observed among the majority members than if the minority consists of seven people would exist.

See also

Web links

literature

  • W. Herkner: Social Psychology. Huber, Bern 1996, pp. 463-468, Chapter 6.314 Influence of minorities.
  • DM Mackie: Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communication. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53, 1987, pp. 41-52.
  • S. Moscovici, E. Lage: Studies in social influence III: Majority versus minority influence in a group. In: Europ. J. Soc. Psychol. 6, 1976, pp. 149-174.
  • S. Moscovici, E. Lage, M. Naffrechoux: Influence of a consistent minority on the response of a majority in a color perception task. In: Sociometry. 32, 1969, pp. 365-379.
  • C. Nemeth, M. Swedlung, B. Kanki: Patterning of the minority's responses and their influence on the majority. In: Europ. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 4, 1974, pp. 53-64.
  • B. Mullen: Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective. In: J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 1983, pp. 295-322.
  • B. Mullen: Self-attention theory: The effect of group composition on the individual. In: B. Mullen, GR Goethals (Ed.): Theories of group behavior. Springer, New York 1987.