Minority Influence

  • Serge Moscovici
  • Gabriel Mugny
Part of the Springer Series in Social Psychology book series (SSSOC)

Abstract

Research on minority influence, that is, the impact of an individual on the group or of a group on a collectivity, is of recent origin. Why did it take so long to recognize this influence? There are several reasons. One is the conception and model on which studies about group phenomena generally, and social influence in particular, were based. From the early days of social psychology until quite recently, interest was focused on conformity, on the way a group affects individuals and brings about social uniformities (Festinger, 1950). Another reason is the perspective from which relations between individuals and groups were mainly envisaged, that is, dependency. Hence the well-known formulation: The fundamental influence mechanism, in its various guises, is social dependency (power, competence, etc.). A final reason is the emphasis on the social control process, which is presumed to facilitate cohesion and to enable a group of individuals to reach its goals. The only function attributed to social influence is therefore the group’s social control over its members. Within this context deviants are presented as obstacles to group progress. They are viewed as “weak” individuals trying to reinsert themselves into the social system. These points are too familiar to delve into them at length. We only wish to point out that they underlie the classical view of groups and group dynamics (see Levine, 1980). Their joint effect has been to instill a conformity bias in social thought and research, as will become more evident when we examine each of these aspects in turn and look at them more closely.

Keywords

Europe Radar Assure Tate Dition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, V. L. Social support for nonconformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. Social support, dissent and conformity. Sociometry, 1968, 31, 138–149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, V. L., & Wilder, D. A. Perceived persuasiveness as a function of response style: Multi-issue consistency over time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 8, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asch, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press, 1951.Google Scholar
  5. Asch, S. E. Studies on independence and conformity: a minority of one against an unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 70, 416.Google Scholar
  6. Crozier, M. On ne change pas la societe par decret. Paris: Grasset et Fasquelle, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Doms, M. The minority influence effect: an alternative approach. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  8. Doms, M., & Van Avermaet, E. Social support and minority influence: the innovation effect reconsidered. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Von Avermaet, Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press-L.E.P.S., 1983.Google Scholar
  9. Festinger, L. Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 271–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freedman, J. L., & Doob, A. N.Deviancy: The psychology of being different. New York: Academic Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  11. Harvey, J. H., Ickes, W. N., & Kidd, R. F. (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Heisenberg, W. Across the frontiers. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1975.Google Scholar
  13. Hollander, E. P. Competence and conformity in the acceptance of influence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kiesler, C. A., & Pallak, M. S. Minority influence: The effect of majority reactionaries and defectors, and minority and majority compromisers, upon majority opinion and attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 5, 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimball, R. K., & Hollander, E. P. Independence in the presence of an experienced but deviate group member. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 93, 281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larsen, K. S. Social cost, belief incongruence, and race: Experiments in choice behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 94, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lerner, M. J. Justice, guilt, and veridical perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 20, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levine, J. M. Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980.Google Scholar
  19. Lewin, K. Resolving social conflicts. London: Souvenir Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press, 1957.Google Scholar
  21. Moscovici, S. Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  22. Moscovici, S. La dissidence d’un seul. Appendix in S. Moscovici, Psychologie des minorites actives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1979.Google Scholar
  23. Moscovici, S. Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13). New York: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  24. Moscovici, S., & Faucheux, C. Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  25. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 1969, 32, 365–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moscovici, S., & Nemeth, C. Social influence II: Minority influence. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1974.Google Scholar
  27. Mugny, G. Negotiations, image of the other and the process of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 5, 209–228.Google Scholar
  28. Mugny, G. The power of minorities. London: Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  29. Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1980, 10, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. Minority influence and psychosocial identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1982, 12, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. L’influence du social dan l’influence sociale. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermzet, Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press-L.E.P.S., 1983.Google Scholar
  32. Nemeth, C., Swedlund, M., & Kanki, B. Patterning of the minority’s responses and their influence on the majority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, 4, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nemeth, C., & Wachtier, J. Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 1974, 37, 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence settings. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1983, 13, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paicheler, G. Norms and attitude change I: Polarization and styles of behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 6, 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Papastamou, S. Strategies of minority and majority influence. In S. Moscovici & W. Doise (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  37. Papastamou, S., Mugny, G., & Kaiser, C. Echec a l’influence minoritaire: La psychologisation. Recherches de Psychologie Sociale, 1980, 2, 41–56.Google Scholar
  38. Personnaz, B. Niveau de resistance a l’influence de responses nomiques et anomiques: Etudes des phenomenes de referents clandestins et de conversions. Recherches en Psychologie Sociale, 1919, 1, 5–27.Google Scholar
  39. Ricateau, P. Processus de categorisation d’autrui et les mecanismes d’influence sociale. Bulletin de Psychologic, 1970–1971, 24, 909–919.Google Scholar
  40. Schachter, S. Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Strodtbeck, F. L., & Hook, L. H. The social dimensions of a twelve-man jury table. Sociometry, 1961, 24, 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wolf, S. Behavioral style and group cohesiveness as sources of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1979, 9, 381–395.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Serge Moscovici
  • Gabriel Mugny

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations