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.

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.

No abstract

The present study examined the relationship between music preferences, values, and musical identities in a sample of 606 Greek college students. Students indicated the importance of music in defining and evaluating themselves and their values on an abbreviated version of the Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992). A typology of music preferences was revealed, with five factors: sophisticated and complex (e.g., jazz); native-Greek traditional (e.g., ‘rebetika’); sentimental and sensational (e.g., pop); established rebellious (e.g., rock); and non-mainstream dissonant (e.g., punk). Hierarchical regression analyses showed that values and perceived importance of music to self-definition (i.e., musical identities) contribute differentially in predicting the music preference structures, for example self-transcendence predicted established rebellious and conservation predicted sentimental and sensational; also musical identity was positively related to established rebellious and negatively to sentimental and sensational. These findings are discussed and interpreted within a psychological, as well as an interdisciplinary, theoretical framework.

Three experiments investigated the effect of consensus information on majority and minority influence. Experiment 1 examined the effect of consensus expressed by descriptive adjectives (large vs. small) on social influence. A large source resulted in more influence than a small source, irrespective of source status (majority vs. minority). Experiment 2 showed that large sources affected attitudes heuristically, whereas only a small minority instigated systematic processing of the message. Experiment 3 manipulated the type of consensus information, either in terms of descriptive adjectives (large, small) or percentages (82%, 18%, 52%, 48%). When consensus was expressed in terms of descriptive adjectives, the findings of Experiments 1 and 2 were replicated (large sources were more influential than small sources), but when consensus was expressed in terms of percentages, the majority was more influential than the minority, irrespective of group consensus.

This paper explores the discursive construction of immigrants' criminality in interview accounts obtained by a sample of Greek people in Thessaloniki (Northern Greece). Analysis, which adopts a discursive approach to stereotypes and category construction, indicates that fear and insecurity on the part of Greek people are represented as a sine qua non consequence of immigration to Greece. Two different lines of argument are used to account for the arousal of fear. According to the first, fear constitutes a corollary of a widespread stereotypical representation of immigrants as criminals. The stereotype of immigrants' criminality is considered to be ill-warranted and it is attributed to the media or to other unspecified people. According to another, more regularly used, line of argument, however, fear is predicated upon the sordid living conditions of immigrants in Greece which make the probability of them being involved in illegal acts particularly high. In this case, fear is seen to derive from a 'rational estimate' of the probability of immigrant's involvement in criminal acts. Nested within the discourse of 'risk' the stereotypical image of immigrants' criminality is sustained and used to account for the need to protect the 'ingroup' from 'immigrant groups' through immigration control and surveillance.

The present paper reviews social psychological research on minority influence. Minorities by proposing alternative and original ideas are often an agent of innovation and social change for societies. They create social conflict by proposing alternative propositions to the established societal perceptions. Minorities are, usually, numerically small groups that question social norms. Minorities influence people's thinking, attitudes, and behavior by being consistent and flexible in their negotiation with majority members. Their influence is more often latent (i.e., evident on delayed, indirect, and private measures) than manifest. They affect the amount, and the quality, of cognitive processing of their messages (triggered by the different elaboration demands of the influence situation). Minority influence interacts with various situational factors such as social identity (in-group or out-group) and the task employed (e.g., objective or opinion) leading to different kinds of influence outcomes.What did Galileo, Darwin, and Freud have in common? They were all individuals who, with their ideas and theories, questioned society's well-established perceptions of cosmos, evolution, and psyche. In proposing their ideas they faced opposition, ridicule, and strong resistance. However, they stood up for their ideas with commitment and resolution. Gradually, their ideas gain territory and were largely accepted by most people. There are also other examples of small, at least initially, groups of people (e.g., Greenpeace, social rights movement, etc.) who similarly questioned social norms and confronted what was taken for granted and eventually changed the way most people think about their causes. Whether lone individuals or fractions of social groups these are examples of minority influence, of individuals or groups that express their dissenting ideas against majority views and gradually change the way most people think, feel, or behave (for reviews, see The present paper reviews the social psychological literature on minority influence and presents the relative research in two parts. The first part by a way of introduction, presents the definitions of minorities (in terms of numbers and social norms) and the theorizing of Serge Moscovici whose work has established the position of minority influence research in social psychology and his theories provide a frame of reference for all relative research. The second part reviews two general explanatory frameworks that have been employed to account for minority influence. The first framework focuses on the cognitive processing connected with minority influence attempts and the second takes into account the social context of the influential setting while explaining minority influence. By following this structure this paper attempts to present the basic concepts of minority influence, the foundational theories of minority influence, and the theoretical frameworks within which we analyze and understand minority influence today.Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5/9 (2011):

No abstract