Social influence: The role of originality

Abstract

Two experiments used 150 undergraduates to investigate the role of message originality vs conventionality in social influence. It was hypothesized that Ss would generate more original proposals when confronted with a minority advocating an original viewpoint than when confronted with a conventional minority proposal or with an original majority proposal. Results of Exp 1 support the hypothesis. Exp 2 further demonstrated that the original message induced creative processing only when attributed to a minority source but not when attributed to a majority source. The original minority elicited creative processing mainly when paired with a conventional majority, but not when paired with a majority advocating an equally original position. Findings are interpreted in the frame of C. J. Nemeth's (see record 1986-14271-001) minority influence theory

The Communications of Influence through Technology-Enabled Media

“…The process of majority influence is classically regarded as the conversion or conformity of one person in accordance with the position or wishes expressed by others belonging to others comprising a majority (Meyers & Brashers, 1999;Meyers, Brashers & Hanner, 2000;Mucchi-Faina, Maass & Volpato, 1991). For example, Asch's (1951) popularly cited works indicated that people can be pressured into reporting an obviously incorrect answer regarding a physical stimulus based solely on the majority's expression of a divergent viewpoint.…”

“…Others have observed that minority members expressing opinions or viewpoints divergent from the majority are often met with hard or aggressive influence tactics from the majority members including pressure, derision, or ridicule, especially during the early stages of the interaction (Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983). However, minority influence has proven successful for the internalization of divergent viewpoints or opinions, but only when the arguments and persuasive appeals communicated to others are of high quality or originality as compared to those rendered from the majority position (Meyers & Brashers, 1999;Mucchi-Faina et al, 1991). Finally, Meyers et al (2000) found that successful minority subgroups were more likely than majority subgroups to express agreement or acknowledgement of others during their influence attempts, were more likely to object or challenge assertions and propositions, and make greater use of contextual or framing statements to qualify a point of contention, or forestall the possibility of potential refutation by securing additional a priori agreement or removing possible objections before they could be aired.…”

“…If communication technologies have the potential to equalize participation rates in groups, individuals simply have more opportunities to express their ideas and preferences, or more time to better compose those ideas to be even more effective before entering them into the collective consciousness of the group (Williams & Wilson, 1997). In addition, it has been suggested that using communication technologies to equalize minority contributions relative to majority inputs may stimulate both divergence and originality of collective thought production, a mechanism also theorized as a key component of minority influence (Mucchi-Faina et al, 1991).A great deal of research also points to the possibility that communication technology can reduce social pressures and deregulate the social context due to a lack of social and interpersonal cues typically employed during face-to-face communication (Sproull & Kiesler, 1986). These effects have been attributed to the leanness or social bandwidth of the media themselves or the features of the media themselves which allow for unique conditions of communicative exchange, anonymity being the most commonly cited and studied within the relevant literatures (Postmes & Lea, 2000).…”

“…If communication technologies have the potential to equalize participation rates in groups, individuals simply have more opportunities to express their ideas and preferences, or more time to better compose those ideas to be even more effective before entering them into the collective consciousness of the group (Williams & Wilson, 1997). In addition, it has been suggested that using communication technologies to equalize minority contributions relative to majority inputs may stimulate both divergence and originality of collective thought production, a mechanism also theorized as a key component of minority influence (Mucchi-Faina et al, 1991).…”

“…Such propensity for negative or flaming behavior may also explain why minority influence attempts have been shown to require considerably greater quality or originality to exert influence or engender internalization (Meyers & Brashers, 1999;Mucchi-Faina et al, 1991).…”