The context of intergroup belief cross wherein minority members maintain consistency: Belief minority and majority in a categorical in‐group and out‐group¹

Abstract

The present study investigated the social conditions required for minority members to preserve their attitudinal and behavioral consistency in an intergroup context. In the experiment, intergroup belief crosses wherein a belief minority (or majority) in a categorical in-group was reversed as a majority (or minority) in an out-group were manipulated. It was hypothesized that individuals supported by the majority in the categorical in-group would preserve their attitudes and behavioral intentions even though they were a minority in the categorical out-group. The results supported the hypothesis. Specifically, members of a majority in the categorical in-group had more consistent behavioral intentions and less attitude changes although they were located as a minority in the out-group. In contrast, members of a minority within the in-group preserved consistency on the basis of support from the majority in the out-group. The theoretical implications of these results are discussed with reference to future research.

Effects of in‐group and out‐group support on behavioral consistency: The majority and minority in the context of an intergroup belief cross

“…In this situation, it would be difficult to express opinions that differed from the in‐group majority, perhaps preventing the need for differentiation from being evoked. In contrast to the present study, Nonami (2006) reported that in addition to the effect of being positioned as the majority of the in‐group, congruency with the majority of the out‐group was also effective in preserving attitudinal and behavioral consistency in an ideological task (evaluation of a bio‐ethical problem) in which individuals decided their opinions privately. Further research is needed to elucidate the difference between group and personal decision‐making tasks on the consistency of minority members.…”

“…In the present experiment, participants were concerned with group strategic decisions based on their role in a company: this is defined as a group task. In addition, in order to exclude the effects of the superordinate category found in Nonami (2006), the boundary between the in‐group and out‐group was emphasized by the description of a context consisting of two different companies. This disrupted their mobility from the in‐group to the out‐group.…”

“…For the larger company, the percentages were similar, 78% and 22%, and again agreement and disagreement were each in the majority half of the time. This manipulation is same as that in Nonami (2006). Figure 1 illustrates the experimental conditions in the current study.…”

“…That is, their diachronic consistency will be low regardless of the support from the majority or minority within the larger out-group. Nonami (2006) manipulated social category within real groups (two departments of a school within a university) to investigate the consistency of minority opinions within intergroup belief crosses. In addition to the effect of the majority within the in-group, the results revealed an effect of the out-group majority on the diachronic consistency of individuals.…”

“…However, the decision to maintain consistent behavior should be affected by both the in‐group and the out‐group within an intergroup context, even though their consistency effectively alters only the members of the in‐group. Nonami (2006) defined an intergroup belief cross as the context in which the ideological majority and minority is reversed between the in‐group and out‐group; this context can be used to examine the influence of support from the majority or minority in both the in‐group and the out‐group on the attitudinal and behavioral consistency of individuals. Although Baker and Petty (1994) investigated the influence of support from the majority or minority on the attitude of individuals, their study manipulated only the majority or minority within the in‐group as an independent variable.…”