Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-ckhzl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-04T01:03:34.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - Influence and its aftermath: Motives for agreement among minorities and majorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Radmila Prislin  and
P. Niels Christensen
Edited by
Fabrizio Butera  and
John M. Levine
Fabrizio Butera
Affiliation:
Université de Lausanne, Switzerland
John M. Levine
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access

Summary

For most minorities, nomen est omen. Derived from the Latin term minor (lesser), minority denotes inferiority. Defined in terms of inferior size, inferior importance, or both, almost all minorities are disadvantaged. They are on the receiving side of many social ills as is evident in their disproportionably higher unemployment rates (Evers & van der Flier, 1998) and incarceration rates (Barrett & William, 2005), but lower earnings (U. S. Census Bureau, 2004) and access to health care (National Center for Health Statistics, 2004). These tangible costs of being in a minority are compounded by psychological tolls, including feelings of marginalization (Brewer & Pickett, 1999; Frable, Blackstone, & Scherbaum, 1990) and social stigmatization (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Moscovici, 1994). Minorities often need active coping strategies to develop a positive social identity, and a sense of correctness, which are the default for members of the majority (for review, see Prislin & Christensen, 2005a). The heavy burdens of minorities led Moscovici (1976) to conclude that although there is nothing wrong with being a minority, “it is tragic to remain one” (p. 74). The looming “tragedy” of a permanent minority position motivates minorities to seek change. This motivation is at the heart of the social influence process.

As obvious as minorities' motivation for change may be, their ability to effect change was not recognized until Moscovici's (1976) seminal reconceptualization of social influence as bidirectional and rooted in social conflict.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Coping with Minority Status
Responses to Exclusion and Inclusion
 , pp. 333 - 354
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barchas, P. (1986). A sociophysiological orientation to small groups. In Lawler, E. (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 3, pp. 209–246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Barrett, K. H., & William, G. (2005). Race, culture, psychology, and law. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brendl, M. C., & Higgins, T. E. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 28, pp. 95–160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B., & Pickett, C. L. (1999). Distinctiveness motives as a source of the social self. In Tyler, T. R., Kramer, R. M., & John, O. P. (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 71–87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: A domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caporael, L. R, & Baron, R. M. (1997). Groups as the mind's natural environment. In Simpson, J. A. & Kendrick, D. T.: Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 317–343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Christensen, P. N., Prislin, R., & Jacobs, E. (2007). Motives for seeking agreement in a group. Unpublished data. Radford University.
Christensen, P. N., Prislin, R., & Jacobs, E. (in press). Motives for social influence after social change: Are new majorities power hungry? Social Influence.
Crano, W. D. (2001). Social influence, social identity, and ingroup leniency. In Dreu, C. K. W. & Vries, N. K. (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 122–159). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–595). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutton, D. G. (1973). Attribution of cause for opinion change and liking for audience members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellemers, N., Doosje, B. J., Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1992). Status protection in high status minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erb, H.-P., & Bohner, G. (2001). Mere consensus effects in minority and majority influence. In Dreu, C. K. W. & Vries, N. K. (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 40–59). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evers, A., & Flier, A. (1998). Ethnic minorities on the labor market. In Drenth, P. J. D., Henk, T., & Wolf, C. J. (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psycholog (Vol. 2, pp. 229–259). Howe, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, S. T. (2002). Five core motives, plus or minus five. In Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., Zanna, M. P., & Olson, J. (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 233–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frable, D. E. S., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Sorentino, R. M. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 28–84). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J. (1998). On the perception of social consensus. In Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 164–240). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1997). Estimates of social consensus by majorities and minorities: The case for social projection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, J. M., & Kaarbo, J. (2001). Minority influence in political decision-making. In Dreu, C. K. W. & Vries, N. K. (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 229–257). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leyens, J.-P., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1992). The ingroup overexclusion effect: Impact of valence and confirmation on stereotypical information search. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 549–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. In Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Group processes. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 80–110). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. In Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Avermaaet, E. (Eds.), Perspective on minority influence (pp. 9–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1994). Three concepts: Minority, conflict, and behavioral style. In Moscovici, S., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Maas, A. (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 233–251). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
for Health, National Center Statistics (2004). Health, United States. Hayattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.Google Scholar
Prislin, R. (in press). Dynamics of change: Minority influence makes the world go around. In Hewstone, M. & Martin, R. (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes, and consequences. Howe, UK: Psychology Press
Prislin, R., Boyle, S., Farley, A., Jacobs, E., & Zandian, F. (2007). The effects of increasing and decreasing support on the intent to persuade and persuasiveness. Unpublished data. San Diego State University.Google Scholar
Prislin, R., Brewer, M., & Wilson, D. J. (2002). Changing majority and minority positions within a group vs. an aggregate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 640–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prislin, R., & Christensen, P. N. (2002). Group conversion versus group expansion as modes of change in majority and minority positions: All losses hurt but only some gains gratify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1095–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prislin, R., & Christensen, P. N. (2005a). Social change in the aftermath of successful minority influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prislin, R., & Christensen, P. N. (2005b). The effects of social change within a group on membership preferences: To leave or not to leave. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 595–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prislin, R., Levine, J. M., & Christensen, P. N. (2006). When reasons matter: Quality of support affects reactions to increasing and consistent agreement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prislin, R., Limbert, W. M., & Bauer, E. (2000). From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 385–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prislin, R., & Wood, W. (2005). Social influence: The role of social consensus in attitude and attitude change. In Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook on attitudes and attitude change (pp. 671–706). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27, 1–60.Google Scholar
Sigall, H. (1970). Effects of competence and consensual validation on a communicator's liking for the audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699–711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. M., & Diven, P. J. (2002). Minority influence and political interest groups. In Ottati, V. C., Tindale, R. S., Edwards, J., Bryant, F. B., Heath, L., O'Connel, D. C., et al. (Eds.), The social psychology of politics (pp. 175–192). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In Paulus, P. B. (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 233–275). Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., & Haslam, S. A. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bureau, U. S. Census. (2004). Evidence from Census 2000 about earnings by detailed occupation for men and women.
Wenzel, M. (2002). What is social about justice? Inclusive identity and group values as the basis of the justice motive. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×