From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group.

Prišlin, Radmila; Limbert, Wendy M.; Bauer, Evamarie

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.385

Cited by 56 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While most other studies of minority and majority influence used small groups mainly in laboratory settings (for example, Asch, 1955;Tanford and Penrod, 1984;Prislin et al, 2000), the present study was conducted within relatively large groups. When the group is large and individual group members cannot correctly estimate the numeric value of the majority and the minority subgroups, there is a perceived minimum group size that supports the individual's behavior rather than a numeric majority or minority.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Majority and minority subgroups constantly influence each other members' behaviors and attitudes (Smith, 1991;De Vries et al, 1996;Tan et al, 1998;Prislin et al, 2000), mainly through group norms and social pressure (e.g., Asch, 1955;Deutsch and Gerard, 1955;Kruglanski and Webster, 1991;Bond and Smith, 1996) and minority dissent (Moscovici, 1985(Moscovici, , 1976Nemeth, 1986). When exposed to majority influence, a minority is likely to experience substantial conformance pressure that causes it to focus on the majority position.…”

Section: The Influence Of Perceived Group Size On Adoption Behaviormentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Reference theory (Stafford, 1971) refers to the notion that comparison groups are used as frames of reference by individuals to determine their own self-status or relative position in a social system. Empirically, Asch's (1955) experiments of majority influence on individuals and the studies that followed used small anonymous reference groups at a single time point (e.g., Tanford and Penrod, 1984;Clark and Maass, 1990;Prislin et al, 2000). The individuals in these groups knew exactly how many members belonged to which subgroup (majority vs. minority).…”

Section: The Influence Of Perceived Group Size On Adoption Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Being the same and different: A model explaining new product adoption

Timmor

Katz–Navon

2008

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study suggests an alternative conceptualization for understanding adoption behavior over time, based on Optimal Distinctiveness Theory. This theory states that social identity derives from a fundamental tension between human needs for validation and similarity to others-the need for assimilation-and a countervailing need for uniqueness and individuation-the need for differentiation. The present study proposes that the effect of the size of the group of consumers who have already adopted a new product on an individual consumer's decision to adopt this product is contingent upon the consumer's two predispositions: the need for assimilation and the need for distinctiveness. Results of empirical research suggested that differently perceived subgroup sizes fulfill consumers' dual needs for distinctiveness and assimilation differently. The influence of the adopters' group size on a consumer's decision to adopt a new product varied among individuals with different levels of needs for distinctiveness and assimilation: when need for distinctiveness was low, the higher was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the higher was the probability of adopting the product. When the need for distinctiveness was high, the lower was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the lower was the probability of adopting the product. In addition, when the need for both distinctiveness and assimilation were high, the probability of adopting the product rose as the perceived group size increased. Implications for product variation, marketing communication, and target groups are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: The Influence Of Perceived Group Size On Adoption Behaviormentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Influence Of Perceived Group Size On Adoption Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Being the same and different: A model explaining new product adoption

Timmor

Katz–Navon

2008

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, losing a majority position in a group (majority to minority) can have stronger effects than gaining a majority position (minority to majority) (Prislin, Limbert, & Bauer, 2000). Status is not a tangible possession; however status can be both a source of other resources (e.g., Lin, 1999;Thye, 2000) and a resource in and of itself (e.g., Barkow, 1989;Emerson, 1962).…”

Section: Status Gain and Lossmentioning

confidence: 98%

Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses

Pettit

Yong

Spataro

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

175

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Studies on majority and minority (Prislin, Limbert & Bauer, 2000;Prislin & Christensen, 2005) clearly indicated that being part of the majority is attractive per se (Ellemers, Doosje, Van Knippenberg & Wilke, 1992;Simon & Hamilton, 1994), but also increases social status and positive social identity (Tajfel, 1981;Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In contrast, minority tends to be deprecated, stigmatized, and dismissed (Moscovici, 1994) thus the minority social identity is less attractive, unless active coping strategies are developed (De Dreu, Harinck & Van Vianen, 1999;Majory et al, 1998;Porter & Washington, 1993).…”

Section: Schism In Groups Characterized By a Majority And A Minoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Phd Thesis: " How outraged reactions to intragroup threat affect group membership preference"

Mazzuca¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether we think about large-scale social groups (e.g. associations, clubs, and nations) or small-scale interpersonal group (e.g. close relationships, colleagues, and group of friends), the life cycle of any social group develops along a continuum that goes from its formation to its dissolution. Social psychology has concentrated almost exclusively on the processes that allow groups achieving oneness and uniformity, such as social identity and categorization process, and has given little attention to the phenomenon of group dissolution, the schism. Although the complexity of this process may have limited the research, schism is not a so rare phenomenon and the recent international events of Grexit, Brexit, and the separatism of Cataluña, have shown that it critically affects the society as a whole. Differently from the individual exit, the schism involves that individuals act as a (sub-) group, and as such it implies that an intragroup situation (the original group) become an intergroup situation (subgroups) where conflicts over essential aspects of the group identity stimulate a division between “us” and “them”. Although the social psychological model of schism in groups proposed by Sani (2005) has highlighted some necessary conditions of a schism, the link between the cause and the decision to leave a group is unclear as one cause may facilitate leaving for one member and not for another. Three studies examined the effect of (a) moral outrage and of (b) psychological disengagement on schismatic intention and identified the conditions under which these reactions lead minority group members to give up with their membership in a majority group. In the first two studies, a moderated mediational model of moral outrage was tested in the relationship between moral threat and intention to leave. In the third study, a mediational model of disengagement in the relationship between moral outrage and leaving intention was tested. Study 1 analysed the real-life event of Brexit (it was run few days before the referendum), and found moral outrage about maintain the membership in the EU, mediating the relationship between a moral threat (caused by PM, Cameron, defending EU position) and the intention to leave the EU. Study 2 (run nine months after the referendum) accounted for the change in leadership prototypicality after the Brexit results (Cameron resigned, and May become the new Prime Minister of UK) and confirmed the mediating role of outrage about staying in EU, and the decision to leave the EU. These two studies provided an initial evidence for the motivating role of moral outrage in pushing forward the defence of the minority identity (UK), at the expense of the membership in a superordinate identity (EU). Study 3, lend further support to the causal role of moral outrage on exit processes, by pointing to psychological disengagement as a mediator of such relationship. By manipulating two discrete components of moral outrage (anger and contempt were considered, because of their different social functions; see e.g. Roseman & Fisher, 2007), disengagement was found to differently predict the collective actions of voice and exit. In particular, results showed that the contempt component of outrage, rather than the anger component, triggered individual’s intention to give up with their membership in the majority group, and this relationship was fully mediated by psychologically disengagement. Directions for future research and implementations of the findings of the current research are discussed according to schism theory and intergroup conflict processes.

show abstract

From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group.

Cited by 56 publications

References 45 publications

Being the same and different: A model explaining new product adoption

Being the same and different: A model explaining new product adoption

Holding your place: Reactions to the prospect of status gains and losses

Phd Thesis: " How outraged reactions to intragroup threat affect group membership preference"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About