Minority influence: the role of ambivalence toward the source

Abstract

According to literature on social influence, a minority source may indirectly influence group members by fostering ambivalent reactions. Two studies were carried out in order to provide empirical support for this theoretical assumption. In Study 1 participants (n ¼ 133), were exposed to a counter-attitudinal minority message and ambivalence was manipulated by facilitating the accessibility of either ambivalent (positive and negative) or univalent (positive or negative) thoughts toward the source. We predicted and found more indirect influence in ambivalent condition than in univalent conditions. No effect of ambivalence on direct influence was found. In Study 2 (n ¼ 127), ambivalence was measured and two possible antecedents of ambivalence, consistency of the minority and personal relevance of the topic for participants, were taken into account. Findings suggest that ambivalence mediates the effects of the two factors on indirect influence. In sum, these studies provide evidence of the importance of ambivalence in minority influence context, an early assumption that was still lacking in strong empirical support.

Socially rejected while cognitively successful? The impact of minority dissent on groups’ cognitive complexity

“…Group members exposed to minority dissent are therefore inclined to both work with (cognitively) and reject (socially) the minority members. Considerable empirical evidence in the minority influence literature shows that majority factions tend to openly disapprove, reject, and even ostracize the dissenting minority (Mucchi‐Faina & Pagliaro, 2008). Therefore, in groups experiencing minority dissent, the group climate is likely to be tense and marked by conflict.…”

Reflections on Gabriel Mugny’s Contributions to Attitude-Centric Theory and Research on Minority Influence

“…This indirect change occurred in the absence of any movement of the focal attitude (Aebischer, Hewstone & Henderson, 1984;Alvaro & Crano, 1996;Gardikiotis, 2011;R. Martin & Hewstone, 2001;Mucchi-Faina & Pagliaro, 2008). It is difficult to know if indirect changes also might have occurred in majority-based social influence research, because a one-dependent-variableat-a-time model characterized the standard operating procedures of this paradigm, probably retarding insight into the interconnected nature of attitude systems (Crano & Lyrintzis, 2015).…”

Minority Influence, Social Change, and Social Stability

“…Considering that minorities are generally overlooked or even ignored, consistent (versus inconsistent) minorities would have the capacity to draw attention to their position for their distinctiveness (Crano & Alvaro, 1998; De Dreu & DeVries, 1996; Moscovici, 1976), thus increasing the possibility of influence. In sum, while there are still some doubts concerning the main underlying process because of multiple interpretations, the importance of consistency in minority influence has been well documented (Wood et al., 1994) and has recently been reconfirmed (Mucchi‐Faina & Pagliaro, 2008; Sigall, Mucchi‐Faina, & Mosso, 2006).…”

“…According to Moscovici (1980), in fact, while the influence of the majority is public and direct, i.e., compliance , the influence of the minority is private and indirect, i.e., conversion . Generally, when a minority message asking for change is effective, it will generate an inconsistent reaction in recipients (i.e., ambivalence, Mucchi‐Faina, 2009; Mucchi‐Faina & Pagliaro, 2008). In fact, people may be attracted by the courage of the minority and the novelty of its proposal but being identified with a marginal and deviant source may be identity threatening.…”