Social influence in groups.

Levine, John M.; Tindale, R. Scott

doi:10.1037/14342-001

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 161 publications

(234 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first, beginning in the early 1950s and lasting until the late 1960s, focused exclusively on majority influence. The second, beginning in the late 1960s and continuing to the present day, focuses on both majority and minority influence, with the goal of clarifying similarities and differences between them (for a detailed review, see Levine & Tindale, 2015).…”

Section: Majority and Minority Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Factional conflict in groups: How majorities and minorities relate to one another

Levine

2017

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disagreement between numerically larger (majority) and smaller (minority) factions in groups is both common and consequential. For these reasons, there is a long tradition of social psychological interest in the causes and consequences of such disagreement. Early work focused on minority members’ movement toward the majority (majority influence) and majority members’ (negative) perceptions and evaluations of those who refused to move. Later work focused on similarities and differences between majority influence and its mirror opposite, minority influence, and on majority members’ (sometimes relatively positive) perceptions and evaluations of minority members. This paper summarizes current knowledge on these topics and suggests promising avenues for future research.

show abstract

Section: Majority and Minority Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Factional conflict in groups: How majorities and minorities relate to one another

Levine

2017

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The possibility of deviant-induced opinion change was identified many years ago in Festinger's (1950) classic analysis of reaction to opinion deviance and received attention in studies stimulated by this perspective (e.g., Levine, Saxe, & Harris, 1976;Levine, Sroka, & Snyder, 1977) as well as those stimulated by Moscovici's (1976Moscovici's ( , 1980 analysis of minority influence (for a review, see Levine & Tindale, 2014). However, deviant-induced opinion change has not been assessed in prior research on the BSE.…”

Section: Group Processes and Intergroup Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms

Pinto

Marques

Levine

et al. 2016

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies examined participants' evaluations of ingroup or outgroup normative and deviant members and changes in agreement with a prescriptive norm. In Experiment 1 (N = 51), the normative target was either a full or marginal ingroup or outgroup member, and the deviant was a full member. In Experiment 2 (N = 113), both targets were full or marginal members, or one was a full member and the other was marginal. As predicted, maximal upgrading of normative members and downgrading of deviant members, as well as endorsement of the norm, occurred when both targets were full ingroup members. In contrast, the deviant was derogated least and the deviant's position was endorsed most when the deviant target was a full ingroup member and the normative target was a marginal ingroup member. Evaluations of normative and deviant ingroup members mediated the effects of their role on participants' agreement with the norm.

show abstract

“…However, individual choice is never fully autonomous. We may be highly susceptible to the opinions of others (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004 ; Levine and Tindale, 2015 ), which means that our choices are vulnerable to the effects of social influence (Berns et al, 2005 ). Social influence is not by itself a problem, but it can be deleterious if it occurs unreflectively, as when individuals agree with others for the sake of agreeing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Some Find it Hard to Disagree? An fMRI Study

Taing

Molenberghs

2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People often find it hard to disagree with others, but how this disposition varies across individuals or how it is influenced by social factors like other people's level of expertise remains little understood. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we found that activity across a network of brain areas [comprising posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC), anterior insula (AI), inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), lateral orbitofrontal cortex, and angular gyrus] was modulated by individual differences in the frequency with which participants actively disagreed with statements made by others. Specifically, participants who disagreed less frequently exhibited greater brain activation in these areas when they actually disagreed. Given the role of this network in cognitive dissonance, our results suggest that some participants had more trouble disagreeing due to a heightened cognitive dissonance response. Contrary to expectation, the level of expertise (high or low) had no effect on behavior or brain activity.

show abstract

Social influence in groups.

Cited by 36 publications

References 161 publications

Factional conflict in groups: How majorities and minorities relate to one another

Factional conflict in groups: How majorities and minorities relate to one another

Membership role and subjective group dynamics: Impact on evaluative intragroup differentiation and commitment to prescriptive norms

Why Do Some Find it Hard to Disagree? An fMRI Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About