Minority Influence

1
Minority Influence

• Creativity and Conversion
• September 26, 2006

2
The Power of the Majority

• Moscovici reversed the Asch experiment and found
  that minorities can also have influence.
• When faced with a consistent minority, 10 of
  subjects reported seeing what the minority saw.
• Major Question Is majority influence more
  powerful than minority influence?

3
Questions of Power

• When thinking about this issue people tended to
  focus on the following questions
• When a minority is faced with majority pressure
• Who wins?
• Who is more likely to conform?
• How many people will conform to a unanimous
  majority as opposed to a consistent minority?
• From this perspective the majority is always more
  powerful.

4
Differentiating Majority from Minority Influence

• Two major theories suggesting that minority
  influence is different and not necessarily
  weaker than majority influence.
• Moscovicis theory of compliance vs.
  conversion.
• Nemeths theory of convergent-divergent thinking.
• Both theories go beyond who wins to consider
  how people think.

5
A Theory of Conversion

• Obeying versus believing
• When people conform to group pressure
• Is attitude change always genuine? Recall the
  Asch studies.
• How can we know if people really changed their
  mind?
• Can we just ask them or is it more complicated?
• These problems led Moscovici to distinguish
  between compliance and conversion.

6
Toward A Theory of Conversion

• Moscovici developed his theory by making a series
  of assumptions
• (1). Majorities and minorities both exert
  influence.
• (2). All attempts at influence create a conflict.
• (3). Both the majority and the minority can
  create this conflict.
• (4). People resolve this conflict by taking the
  path of least resistance (which differs
  depending on whether the source is a
  majority or minority).

7
Path to compliance

• In response to majority (Moscovici p. 216)
• the best way to lessen this tension is to
  change ones response in the public realm
  modifying them in the private realm would amount
  to losing ones self determination.
• All things being equal, it is easier to go along
  with the majority and so we do so even if we
  privately disagree.

8
Path To Conversion

• If a person decides the minority view is correct
• the only path for resolving the conflict lies
  in the private sphere, since it is very difficult
  to make direct concession or to change judgments
  in the public sphere.
• People may convert to the minority view but often
  not publicly.
• If a person moves from the majority to minority
  then you can generally assume that such movement
  is genuine.

9
Summary

• Minority influence more often occurs in private
  but not in public.
• Moscovici calls private influence latent
• In contrast,
• Majority influence more often occurs in public
  but not in private.
• Conclusion Minority influence is not necessarily
  weak just different.

10
Empirical Evidence

• Prediction People will go along with the
  majority in public, but they may be influenced by
  the minority at a private/latent level.
• Method Subjects looked at blue slides
• Faced with majority Confederate said slides were
  green and experimenter said that most people
  would agree.
• Faced with minority Confederate said slides were
  green and experimenter said that most people
  would disagree.

11
Afterimage Example
12
Afterimage Phenomenon

• Afterimage examples View a flash of light,
  headlights from an approaching car, briefly look
  at the sun.
• KEY POINT
• Each color has a complimentary afterimage.
• Example If you stare at blue and then stare at a
  white screen it will look yellow-orange.

13
Method (cont)

• Write down (1) The color of the slide
• (2) The color of the afterimage
• Afterimage Blue yellow-orange afterimage
• Green red-purple after image.
• Example The slide was BLUE and the after
  image was yellow-orange.

14
Results

• Only 5 of the subjects said the slide was green
  when it was actually blue.
• Very little PUBLIC conformity was observed.
• Subjects reported seeing the after-image
  associated with green when they were exposed to a
  minority saying the slide was green.
• Example Slide was blue, and after image was
  red-purple (colors associated with green not
  blue)

15
Direct versus Indirect Influence

• Experiment demonstrated that people were
  influenced at a private, subconscious level and
  not at a public, overt level.
• Social influence is more pervasive than a simple
  dichotomy between conforming and yielding.
• Influence can also be indirect (e.g. Over time,
  on peripheral issues).

16
Further Evidence that Minority Influence is
Different from Majority Influence

• Nemeth (1986) argues that majority and minority
  influence can also be distinguished by the way
  they make people think.
• Nemeth also focused on another outcome that is
  unrelated to who eventually wins.
• Focus in this theory on convergent versus
  divergent thinking.

17
Convergent versus Divergent Thinking

• Divergent thinking Thinking that moves outward
  from a problem in many possible directions.
• Example Brainstorming
• Convergent thinking Thinking that proceeds
  toward one single answer.
• Example An arithmetic problem.

18
Divergent Thinking Illustration

• Question List all the uses for a brick.
• Convergent Thinking Use the brick to build a
  bridge, to build a house, to build a barbeque, to
  build a castle in the sky.
• All ideas involve using the brick to build
  something therefore they are all conceptually
  similar to one another.
• Divergent Thinking Use the brick to kill
  someone, to prop open a door, as a topic of
  conversation, to cast a shadow.
• Each idea is conceptually different from the
  last.

19
Dissent Stimulates Divergent Thinking

• OPTIMAL AROUSAL
• (1). People experience less arousal when exposed
  to a minority enough to be motivated but not
  enough to panic.
• INCREASED CURIOSITY
• (2). When faced with a consistent minority people
  are
• motivated to understand their position
  (How can
• they be so wrong yet so confident?) and in
  doing
• so, they see an issue from many different
  
• perspectives. They cant be right, so I will
  look for alternatives.
• INCREASED CONFLICT
• (3). Minority opinions are not adopted quickly
  and the
• conflict that ensues will force people to
  think more
• carefully about an issue.

20
Empirical Evidence

• LABORATORY EVIDENCE
• See Nemeth (1986) for experimental evidence in
  support of the theory.
• Important question of generalizability. Do lab
  results hold in the real world?
• FIELD EVIDENCE
• Study of majority/minority influence in the
  Supreme Court.
• Some theorists argue that open mindedness depends
  on ideology. Liberals believed to be more open
  minded than conservatives.
• Question Does majority versus minority status
  matter more than ideology in predicting open
  mindedness?

21
Minority Influence on the Supreme Court

• Studies of political decision making showed that
  conservatives interpret policies in less complex
  ways than do liberals.
• Integrative Complexity Viewing an issue in black
  and white versus shades of gray. One right
  answer versus many possible right answers (one
  the one hand, on the other hand).
• Problem Political ideology was systematically
  confounded with status such that conservatives in
  these studies were also more often in the
  minority.

22
Result Ideology Does Not Matter

• Content analysis of all supreme court decisions
  (and dissenting opinions) from 1953-1990.
• RESULTS
• (1). Dissenting opinions were simple
• (an indicator of convergent thinking).
• (2). Majority opinions were complex
• (an indicator of divergent thinking).
• (3). Once majority/minority status was accounted
  for
• ideology did not have any effect.

23
Implications of the Theory

• Minorities are not the ones thinking in a
  creative way, instead they are stimulating the
  majority to think in a more creative way.
• Minority dissent even when wrong is of value
  because it makes a group more creative.
• Contrast with Value in Diversity hypothesis.
  Minority viewpoints are not of value because of
  the content of what they have to say but rather
  because of the productive conflict that occurs
  when you engage them in a debate.

24
Practical Applications

• Theory has been applied to at least 2 important
  areas in organizations.
• GROUP CREATIVITY
• Groups who think divergently are able to generate
  more novel and original ideas and ultimately come
  up with more creative solutions. A foundation
  for understanding innovation.
• GROUP DECISION MAKING
• Decision making groups often rush toward a
  premature agreement without considering all the
  available alternatives. Therefore, minority
  influence can improve the quality of group
  decision making by leading a group to consider
  more alternatives prior to making a decision.

25
Cloning Dissent Devils Advocate

• Clearly organizations should encourage dissent,
  but there are also disadvantages (e.g. cohesion,
  morale).
• Can an organization encourage dissent without
  experiencing any drawbacks?
• (Nemeth, et al, 2001)
• Devils Advocate Dissent can be role-played by
  asking one person to disagree with a proposal.

26
Devils Advocate Experiment

• Subjects asked to make a decision about rewarding
  money in a personal injury case.
• Case Washing machine repairman who was injured
  on the job. His lost wages and medical bills were
  paid, but he was suing his employer for pain and
  suffering.
• Award (1) 1-75K (2) 75K to 150K up to (8)
  more than 525K.
• Most people would award either (1) or (2).

27
Procedure

• One member of the group was asked to
• Devils Advocate
• Play the role of devils advocate by taking a
  position contrary to the groups decision. The
  entire group knew the person was instructed to
  take this role.
• Authentic Dissent
• One person was asked to take a position of high
  compensation to the victim without the group
  knowing of these instructions.

28
Results

• Authentic Dissent
• People generated more original arguments in
  favor of their position that went beyond the
  information given and anticipated more
  counter-arguments.
• Devils Advocate
• People generated more arguments in favor of
  their own position without taking into account
  other perspectives on the issue.
• Bottom Line The Devils Advocate can actually
  make things worse!

29
Recapitulate

• Dissent stimulates the group to think
  divergently, to be more creative, to make better
  decisions.
• These effects are independent of the groups
  political ideology.
• Authentic dissent cannot easily be cloned using
  techniques such as the Devils Advocate.