Normative influence is based on the desire to be accepted by others and leads to compliance, publicly conforming and private views remaining the same. An example of this is Asch (1951, as cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005) “classic line judgement study”, where the tasks have one correct answer (“unambiguous”). Groups were shown three lines on one slide and one line on another and asked to find the two matching lines. Group consisted of majority confederates and one naïve participant who gave their answer second to last. It was found about 50 per cent participants conformed to majority incorrect view and 75 per cent conformed to majority view at least once. After the experiment participants reported that they knew the majority were incorrect and despite knowing the correct answers, they went along with the majority view in order to gain approval and acceptance from the group.
Minority influence works very differently to majority. Minorities have to adopt certain behavioural styles such as flexibility, not acting out of self interest and most importantly consistency (Moscovici, 1950), which makes that majority question themselves and this encourages them to think about minority view and perhaps conform to it. The effectiveness of consistent minority influence was demonstrated by Moscovici, Lage, Naffrechoux (1969, as cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005) study. Participants were presented with slides that were all different shades of blue and minority confederates of the experiment claimed that the slides were ‘green’. There were three groups: (1) consistent minority group, (2) inconsistent minority group, (3) control group with no confederates. It was found that a consistent minority gained highest conformity and a control group had least conformity.
Minority influence results in a long lasting and deep cognitive change in opinion. This is known as conversion or internalisation (Moscovici, 1950). This was demonstrated in a remarkable study by Moscovici and Personnaz (1980, as cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005). Participants were asked to identify the colours of the slides on a white screen publicly and then the after-image colour privately. It was found that minority influence didn’t produce public conformity, but the private after-image colours seen by participants indicated cognitive changes influenced by minority, as they saw after-image colour of minority view. It was explained that this was due to participants concentrating more on minority views and giving less attention to majority views. However, a replication of Moscovici & Personnaz study by Dom & Van Avermaet (1979), found that participants influenced by majority and minority changed after-image. Sorrentino, King & Lea (1980, as cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005) found that there was no effect of minority influence on after-image perceived.
The views and attitudes held about majority and minority groups can effect the process and timing if influence. Nemeth, Swedlund and Kanki (1974) argued that in society majority groups are seen positively and are likely to influence people from the beginning of trails, discussions and other aspects. On the other hand, minority groups are viewed negatively so are unlikely to influence people, but it has been found that people move to minority view later once they have had time to evaluate the reasons for consistency and certainty of minority. Maass and Clark (1983, as cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005) looked at peoples attitudes on gay rights and found that participants conformed to dominant majority views in public despite their private views being similar to minority.
Majority and minority views can also affect the ability to solve problems and think more openly. Nemeth (1986) found in a number of problem solving tasks, that majority were more likely to influence participants but this resulted in participants being less likely to solve problems in creative and alternative ways. Minorities were less likely to influence views but encouraged the participants to think about alternative methods of problem solving and most interestingly participants were more likely to get correct answers if minority answer was incorrect.
A different opinion of majority and minority influence came from Latane and Wolf (1981, cited in Nemeth, 1936). They argued that the ways in which minority and majority influenced others was similar. The only difference was that majority were more effective in influencing due to having more members. Therefore, majority group size is a significant factor. Many studies such as Latane, 1981; Tanford&Penrod, 1984; Wolf, 1987 (as cited in Deaux, Dane& Wrightsman, 1993) have found that as group size increases so does the chance of conformity to that group. However, conformity reaches a peak between 3-5 members. This is because each member if a group acts as a source of information, more than five members defuses the information that each member provides, making each source of information less influential and less than three results in not enough sources providing information (Slang, 1976; as cited in Hogg & Vaughan, 2005). These findings can be looked at in another way. For example, a minority with four members may be more effective in influencing then majority with ten members. Therefore, majority and minority influence could be considered as quite similar if consisted of 3-5 members.
After considering perspectives by social psychologists and supporting evidence, it can be summarised that majority influence results in compliance, a public conformity due to informational and normative needs. This has been demonstrated in studies by Sherif (1936) and Asch (1951). Minority influence differs from this as it produces conversion or internalisation which is a change in private opinion that is deep and long lasting, as shown in Moscovici and Personnaz (1980). Minority influence can be successfully achieved by adopting some main behavioural styles such as consistency (Moscovici, Lage & Naffrechoux, 1969), flexibility and certainty. Views that society holds about groups can affect the timing of conformity. Unlike minority groups, majority groups have the advantage of being able to influence from the start. But after some time to consider minority view, many move towards thinking more about that view and ultimately may start believing it themselves (Nemeth, Swedlund & Kanki, 1974). Minority and majority answers also affect ones ability to solve tasks effectively. Majority influence can lead to people thinking in more limited ways and less likely to solve tasks than when influenced by a minority group which encourages people to think more widely and use alternative methods (Nemeth, 1986). Interestingly, people are more likely to solve problems correctly of minority opinion is wrong. Finally, even thou there are so many ways in which a minority influence differs from a majority influence, it is worth considering alternatives such as the similarities between them and other factors that effect conformity to majority and minority influence such as those proposed by Slang (1976) on effectiveness of group size.
References
Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., Branscombe, N. R. (2006). Social Psychology (11th ed.). USA
Deaux, K., Dane, F. C., Wrightsman, L. S. (1993). Social Psychology in the 90’s (6th ed.).
USA: California
Doms, M. & Van Avermaet, E. (1980). Majority influence, minority influence and conversion
behaviour: A replication. Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 283-292.
Hogg, M. A., & Vanghan, G. M. (2005). Social Psychology (4th ed.). England: Essex
Kelvin, P. (1969). The bases of social behaviour. Great Britain
Kinch, J. W. (1973). Social Psychology. USA
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence.
Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
