Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Minority Influence (useful (There are four themes of minority influence,…

- - - - First, it has exposed the antecedents, processes, and consequences of social change
      - Second, minority influence has turned the attention to social groups in a way that transcends social categorization approach, not only it introduces an in-group– out-group dimension, in terms of ‘us’ versus ‘them’, but additionally it takes into account the power dimension of majority–minority, in terms of the ‘many’ versus the ‘few’, or the ‘normative’ versus the ‘anti-normative’, etc
- - - - According to the first definition, minority is numerically smaller than the majority group. During the last three decades, this is how minority has been mainly operationalized in social influence research
    - - Minorities are mainly groups of people that think and act differently, outside the norm; they – whether a lone individual (e.g., Gali- leo) or a small group, or even a numerical majority (e.g., blacks in South Africa)
        
        Moscovici (1994) stresses the fact that minorities are ‘‘every group that, for whatever reason, deviates or transgress from the establishment rules or norms, or dissents, that is, thinks differently from most members of the community’’ (p. 238).
        
        Thus, majority typically holds the normative position (i.e., opinions and beliefs that reflect ‘accepted’ standards in society) and is considered to be high in power and the minority holds the anti-normative or deviant position and is considered to be low in power.
  - - - genetic model that focuses on the production and genera- tion of social change
        
        Social influence is about creating, coping with, and negotiating social conflicts
        
        include the processes of* con- formity, normalization, and innovation
        
        Conformity is the form of influence whereby the conflict between the individual and the group is reduced. Normalization is the avoidance of conflict through reciprocal influence and compromise. Third, the process of innovation is exerted by active and consistent minorities.
        
        The way that a minority creates and resolves a conflict depends on its behavioral style (Moscovici et al., 1969).
        
        Consistency is identi- fied by Moscovici as the most important behavioral style for a minority to be influential (other behavioral styles include investment, autonomy, fairness and rigidity)
        
        It concerns intrapersonal (or diachronic) consistency across time and situations and interpersonal (or synchronic) consistency across individuals (see
        
        However, Levine and Russo (1987) suggest that consistency does not always work in a simple manner and that, on attitudinal issues, it is not a crucial determinant of minority influence and is often con- strained by other variables such as the size of the minority (Nemeth, Wachtler, & Endi- cott, 1977), the extremity of minority opinion (Levine & Ranelli, 1978), the normative context (‘Zeitgeist’) of the influence setting (Paicheler, 1976), or the amount of social support available to the majority (Doms, 1984).
        
        Mugny (1975) proposed that one should consider
        the general style of negotiation with majority members.
        
        flexible and rigid style
        
        Generally, a flexi- ble style is more advantageous than a rigid style (Mugny & Papastamou, 1980)
        
        ригидный стиль вызывает психологизацию - приписывание стиля личностным качествам, однако есть подозрения, что ригидность улучшает не прямое воздействие на большинство
    - - compilance and conversion
        
        conversion theory places less emphasis on minority’s behavioral style and more on its distinctiveness which leads to greater cognitive elaboration of minority’s position
      - three main hypotheses arising from conversion theory
        
        1// The direction of attention hypothesis: majority textinfluence causes people to focus on the relationship between themselves and the source of influence, whereas minority influence causes people to focus on the content of the minority message
        
        2// The content of thinking hypothesis: majority influence leads to a superficial examination of the majority’s argument, whereas minority influence leads to a detailed evaluation of the minority’s arguments.
        
        3// the differential influence hypothesis: majority influence leads to more public ⁄ direct influence than private ⁄ indirect, whereas minority influence leads to the opposite
      - conversion theory suggests that majorities and minor- ities instigate different amounts of thinking
- - - - first, the majority exerts informational influence
      - second the majority breaks consensus expectations
      - In contrast, exposure to a counteratti- tudinal minority does not lead to informational influence, nor does it break the consensus heuristic and, consequently, one is less likely to process the minority’s message
    - - спорный подход, не все подтверждается
    - - When the elaboration demands are low (e.g., the topic is low in personal relevance), message recipients do not process the source’s argu- ments and attitudes can be guided through simple heuristics (such as the majority is more likely to be right than the minority). When elaboration demands are high (e.g., the topic is high in personal relevance), then people will attend to, and process, both the majority and minority arguments and there should be attitude change in both situations.
      - However, most influence situations to which people are exposed are not characterized by either very low or high processing demands but, rather, are located at an intermediate level. In this situation, Martin and Hewstone, believe conversion theory should apply
    - - обозначение подхода с упором на обработку информации
    - - suggests that majorities and minorities lead to different kinds or styles of thinking.
        
        in Nemeth’s (1986) terminology, majorities induce a concentration on the position
        they propose and thus convergent thinking (message-specific thinking) whereas minorities stimulate a greater consideration of other alternatives, divergent thinking (issue-specific thinking)
        
        However, because most of this research has employed cognitive tasks to measure task performance more research is needed to determine the compatibility of the theory on attitudes (Martin, Hewstone, Martin, & Gardikiotis, 2008
        
        Disagreeing majorities lead to greater levels of interpersonal stress and this consequently should foster focused attention. Focused attention combined with the use of consensus heuristic (i.e., ‘majority is correct’) will lead people to think closely about the position supported by a majority. On the other hand, a dissenting minority will not induce much stress and since it is not perceived as correct either, people facing minorities will think of the gap between their position and the minority’s, or in other words of the general issue under consideration.
  - - - the self-categorization theory (Turner, 1991) : :star:
        
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpGBp2DYqm4
        
        suggesting that only those who are similar to self (on dimensions relevant to influence) can be agents of influence (Turner, 1991)
        
        This is because similar others provide consensual validation for one’s opinions whereas dissimilar others do not.
        
        Festinger’s (1954) theorizing, the idea is that when people evaluate and assess the uncertain social reality, they seek validation of their opinions and views through the consensus provided by members of a reference group
        
        A minority, then, will have influence only if it is defined as the target’s in-group and this is what most studies find (Alvaro & Crano, 1997
        
        Contrary to self-categorization theory, however, there is evidence that not only ingroup minorities lead to indirect attitude change, but also out-group minorities can have considerable indirect influence and often greater influence than the in-group minority
      - the context ⁄comparison model
        (Crano, 2001)
        
        identifies three major contexts for minority influence: whether the influence attempt concerns a situation of attitude formation or attitude change, the subjective-objective nature of task employed and the social identity of the influence source
        
        In the case of out-group minorities, however, the source is der- ogated, resulting in little direct or indirect influence. The
        
        In attitude change situations, where attitudes are more vested (i.e., strong), a more complex pattern emerges.
        
        This contract permits the minority to be heard, without open criticism and derogation and the majority to maintain its position on important issues
        
        In contexts involving attitude formation, where no initial position exists, minority due to its distinctiveness and salience can be persuasive even in a direct level.
        
        This pattern is intensified when the task is of objective nature.
      - the conflict-elaboration theory (Perez & Mugny, 1996)
        
        similar to conversion theory, proposes that divergence from a source of influence causes conflict and how this conflict is managed depends on whether it originates from a majority or minority source (Mugny, Butera, Sanchez-Mazas, & Perez, 1995; Pe ´rez & Mugny, 1996).
        
        This process of conflict elaboration, ‘‘refers to the
        way people give meaning to this divergence’’
        
        Conflict elaboration depends on two important contexts, the social identity of the
        source and the type of task involved.
        
        SI
        
        ingroup
        
        outgroup
        
        type of the task
        
        objective
        
        1 more item...
        
        aptitude
        
        1 more item...
        
        opinion
        
        1 more item...
        
        non-inplication