Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence

Abstract

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.

Are people really conformist-biased? An empirical test and a new mathematical model

“…Since our results support the Nonconformist Hypothesis of social influence, we will discuss how our study compares with two other types of studies that seem to make the opposite finding (MARTIN et al 2002;EFFERSON et al 2008). MARTIN et al (2002) examined the impact on participants of reading an article titled 'Majority (82% or 52%) [or Minority (48% or 18%)] of students against voluntary euthanasia', and found that the large difference in effect was between 52% and 48%, i.e., the important message was which was the majority opinion.…”

“…MARTIN et al (2002) examined the impact on participants of reading an article titled 'Majority (82% or 52%) [or Minority (48% or 18%)] of students against voluntary euthanasia', and found that the large difference in effect was between 52% and 48%, i.e., the important message was which was the majority opinion. This would seem to support the Conformist Hypothesis.…”

I Think Therefore I Am (Influenced): Perceptions of Social Influence on Self and Others

“…The topic of the influential message was the "legalization of voluntary euthanasia," which has been used in previous studies (e.g. Gardikiotis, Martin & Hewstone, 2005;Martin, Gardikiotis & Hewstone, 2002). The text presenting a fictitious national survey of students on the topic of voluntary euthanasia comprised six arguments (strong or weak depending on the condition) against voluntary euthanasia.…”

May the matrix be with you! Guidelines for the application of expert-based matrix approach for ecosystem services assessment and mapping

“…The experts may be influenced by the pre-filled scores or unwilling to change values even if they harbour doubts, which may make it difficult to differentiate whether pre-filled scores left unchanged were because the expert did not think he/she had the knowledge to credibly change them or because he/she agreed with them. Some evidence existed that the use of pre-existing evidences can influence the scoring notably when it is associated with a majority effect and/or with some degree of authority (Martin et al 2002, Gardikiotis 2017. It could be possible to track changes and actually requires some meta information regarding the choices of the expert for each score but that would cancel the time gain advantage of the method.…”