Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence

Three experiments are reported which examine the effects of consensus information on majority and minority influence. In all experiments two levels of consensus difference were examined; large (82% versus 18%) and small (52% versus 48%). Experiment 1 showed that a majority source had more influence than a minority source, irrespective of consensus level. Experiment 2 examined the cause of this effect by presenting only the source label (‘majority’ versus ‘minority’), only the consensus information (percentages) or both. The superior influence of the majority was again found when either (a) both source label and consensus information were given (replicating Experiment 1) and (b) only consensus information was given, but not when (c) only the source label was given. The results showed majority influence was due to the consensus information indicating more than 50% of the population supported that position. Experiment 3 also manipulated message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to identify whether systematic processing had occurred. Message quality only had an impact with the minority of 18%. These studies show that consensus information has different effects for majority and minority influence. For majority influence, having over 50% support is sufficient to cause compliance while for a minority there are advantages to being numerically small, in terms of leading to detailed processing of its message.

Majority versus minority influence:the role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion

Two experiments examined the extent to which attitudes changed following majority and minority influence are resistant to counter-persuasion. In both experiments participants' attitudes were measured after being exposed to two messages, delayed in time, which argued opposite positions (initial message and counter-message). In the first experiment, attitudes following minority endorsement of the initial message were more resistant to a second counter-message only when the initial message contained strong versus weak arguments. Attitudes changed following majority influence did not resist the second counter-message and returned to their pre-test level. Experiment 2 varied whether memory was warned (i.e., message recipients expected to recall the message) or not, to manipulate message processing. When memory was warned, which should increase message processing, attitudes changed following both majority and minority influence resisted the second counter-message. The results support the view that minority influence instigates systematic processing of its arguments, leading to attitudes that resist counter-persuasion. Attitudes formed following majority influence yield to counter-persuasion unless there is a secondary task that encourages message processing.

The phenomenology of minority-majority status:effects on innovation in argument generation

In three experiments, we manipulated participants' perceived numerical status and compared the originality and creativity of arguments generated by members of numerical minorities and majorities. Independent judges, blind to experimental conditions, rated participants' written arguments. In Studies 1 and 2, we found that participants assigned to a numerical minority generated more original arguments when advocating their own position than did numerical majorities. In Study 3, an equal-factions control group was included in the design, and all participants were instructed to argue for a counter-attitudinal position. Those in the numerical minority generated more creative arguments than those in both the majority and equal-factions conditions, but not stronger arguments. We propose cognitive and social processes that may underlie our obtained effects and discuss implications for minority influence research.

Effects of caffeine on persuasion and attitude change:the role of secondary tasks in manipulating systematic message processing

Two experiments are reported that examine the effects of caffeine consumption on attitude change by using different secondary tasks to manipulate message processing. The first experiment employed an orientating task whilst the second experiment employed a distracter task. In both experiments participants consumed an orange-juice drink that either contained caffeine (3.5?mg/kg body weight) or did not contain caffeine (placebo) prior to reading a counter-attitudinal communication. The results across both experiments were similar. When message processing was reduced or under high distraction, there was no attitude change irrespective of caffeine consumption. However, when message processing was enhanced or under low distraction, there was greater attitude change in the caffeine vs. placebo conditions. Furthermore, attitudes formed after caffeine consumption resisted counter-persuasion (Experiment 1) and led to indirect attitude change (Experiment 2). The extent that participants engaged in message-congruent thinking mediated the amount of attitude change. These results provide evidence that moderate amounts of caffeine increase systematic processing of the arguments in the message resulting in greater agreement.

The representation of majorities and minorities in the British Press:a content analytic approach

A content analysis examined the way majorities and minorities are represented in the British press. An analysis of the headlines of five British newspapers, over a period of five years, revealed that the words ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ appeared 658 times. Majority headlines were most frequent (66% ), more likely to emphasize the numerical size of the majority, to link majority status with political groups, to be described with positive evaluations, and to cover political issues. By contrast, minority headlines were less frequent (34%), more likely to link minority status with ethnic groups and to other social issues, and less likely to be described with positive evaluations. The implications of examining how real-life majorities and minorities are represented for our understanding of experimental research are discussed.

Minority influence and social categorization:a replication

The effects of ingroup and outgroup minorities upon public and private levels of influence was examined. The results show that whilst ingroup minorities have greater influence in public, outgroup minorities can have as much, if not more influence than ingroup minorities when responses are made in private. These results are consistent with previous research and support the social identijkation model of social influence.

Minority influence and 'trivial' social categorization

This experiment examines ingroup and outgroup minority influence when group membership was determined by a trivial categorization. The results show that ingroup minorities had more public influence than outgroup minorities when the categorization was trivial and when subjects also believed that they were similar to their ingroup. However, no differences were found when group membership was not associated with similarity. These results are interpreted as supporting the social identification model of social influence.

Organizational citizenship behavior and organizational commitment in Nepal

The present study examines the structure of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and its relation to organizational commitment in Nepal. Four-hundred and fifty employees of five Nepalese organizations filled out standardized questionnaires. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed two factors of OCB, altruism and compliance, replicating Western models of extra-role behavior. Structural equation analysis showed a positive relation between affective and normative commitment on the one hand and both citizenship factors on the other. Continuance commitment was negatively related to compliance and unrelated to altruism. The findings thus confirmed the structure and usefulness of the concepts in an under-researched geographical area. Findings of the research are discussed within the Nepalese sociocultural context. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association 2005.

Majority versus minority influence:when, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing

Two experiments investigated the extent of message processing of a persuasive communication proposed by either a numerical majority or minority. Both experiments crossed source status (majority versus minority) with message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to determine which source condition is associated with systematic processing. The first experiment showed a reliable difference between strong and weak messages, indicating systematic processing had occurred, for a minority irrespective of message direction (pro- versus counter-attitudinal), but not for a majority. The second experiment showed that message outcome moderates when a majority or a minority leads to systematic processing. When the message argued for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the majority source; but when the message did not argue for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the minority source. Thus one key moderator of whether a majority or minority source leads to message processing is whether the topic induces defensive processing motivated by self-interest.

Minority influence and optimal problem-solving

An analogous thinking task was used to test Nemeth's Convergent–Divergent theory of majority and minority influence. Participants read a (base) problem and one of three solutions (one of which is considered the ‘best' solution). They then generated solutions to a second (target) problem which shared similar structural features to the first problem. Due to the similarities between problems, the solution given to the first problem can be used as an analogy in solving the second. In contrast to Nemeth's theory, when the solution to the base problem was endorsed by a numerical majority there was not an increase in analogy-transfer in solving the target problem. However, in support of Nemeth's theory, when the base solution was supported by a numerical minority then the participants were more likely to generate the ‘best' solution to the target problem regardless of which base solution they were given. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Majority and minority influence using the afterimage paradigm:a replication with an unambiguous blue slide

This study re-examines the afterimage paradigm which claims to show that a minority produces a conversion in a task involving afterimage judgements (more private influence than public influence) as opposed to mere compliance produced by a majority. Subsequent failures to replicate this finding have suggested that the changes in the afterimages could be attributed to increased attention due to an ambiguous stimulus coupled with subject suspiciousness. This study attempted to replicate the original experiment but with an unambiguous stimulus in order to remove potential biases. The results showed shifts in afterimages consistent with the increased attention hypothesis for a minority and majority and these were unaffected by the level of suspiciousness reported by the subjects. Additional data shows that no shifts were found in a no-influence control condition showing that shifts were related to exposure to a deviant source and not to response repetition.

Ingroup and outgroup minorities:differential impact upon public and private responses

The experiment which is presented in this paper was designed to overcome some of the problems associated with previous research investigating the effects of social categorization and minority influence. Sixty-eight fourteen-year-old British Secondary School pupils indicated their attitudes towards a 'grant for pupils' before and after reading a text which advocated a minority position. The text was attributed as being the work of either pupils from their own school (ingroup minority) or from a school they discriminated against (outgroup minority). Responses were either made in ‘public’ (by telling subjects that other pupils would see their responses) or in ‘private’ (by subjects putting their responses into a ‘ballot box’). The results showed that on public responses ingroup minorities had more influence than outgroup minorities while there was no difference on private responses. Also, greater change occurred when responses were made in private than in public. These results are compatible with the intergroup analysis of minority influence.

No regrets? Measuring the career benefits of a psychology placement year

We report an analysis of whether a psychology placement year provides a significant benefit to graduates’ careers. Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey data six months post-graduation suggested that placement programme graduates across the university are more likely to be (i) in work and (ii) in graduate level jobs. For psychology, the association between graduates’ placement status and employment status at six months post graduation was not significant overall. However, when analyses were split by degree classification obtained, it was shown that amongst those graduates with 2.1 classification degrees reporting themselves as working, more placement programme vs. non-placement programme graduates had obtained graduate level jobs (63% vs. 33%). In 2.2 graduates there was no significant association. This pattern persisted in the data from a survey of psychology alumni (from 18 months to six and a half years post graduation). Psychology placement programme alumni were more satisfied with their careers even when ethnicity, gender, degree classification and entry year were taken into account. They also earn more, although not when background factors are taken into account. This study was therefore able to show some measurable and persistent effects of a psychology placement year, although whether the benefits can be claimed to outweigh the costs is inconclusive. Limitations and implications are discussed.