The Tyranny of Numbers: Does Group Size Affect Petition Signing?

Abstract

Conformity research proposes that an individual's tendency to conform increases linearly as a function of group size, reaches an early plateau, and remains stable thereafter, An experiment was performed to test the generality of this notion to a common group pressure situation: petition‐signing. Results revealed no meaningful relationships whatever between the percent of subjects who signed and the number of previous signatures (0 through 8), the forcefulness of the solicitor's approach, and subject's sex. A female petitioner did receive more signatures than a male, however. Results were interpreted as supporting the validity of petitions as indicators of public sentiment.

Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence

“…The results of the first experiment only supported the majority effect hypothesis and showed that, irrespective of consensus level, a majority had more influence than a minority (Goldberg, 1954;Kidd, 1958;Mackie, 1987;Reis et al, 1976). The trend analyses offered no support for the consensus hypothesis and therefore this does not support the mathematical models of social influence.…”

“…The first two focus on the nature of the source of influence. Based on several studies, we tested whether a majority would be more influential than a minority irrespective of consensus level (Goldberg, 1954;Kidd, 1958;Mackie, 1987;Reis et al, 1976). It may be the case that the label 'majority' is sufficient to make members of the minority conform to the majority, with the relative size between them not being important.…”

“…Finally, some studies failed to report any relationship between group size and influence (e.g. Goldberg, 1954;Kidd, 1958;Reis, Earing, Kent, & Nezlek, 1976). Some of the potential explanations for the inconsistent findings in these studies are the different tasks used, the different manipulations of source, and the different perception of the majority by the participants (see Campbell & Fairey, 1989;Insko, Drenan, Soloman, Smith, & Wade, 1983;Wilder, 1977).…”

Group Consensus in Social Influence: Type of Consensus Information as a Moderator of Majority and Minority Influence

“…Therefore, Experiment 1 investigated, for the first time, the effect of group consensus as expressed by the consensus adjectives large versus small on majority and minority influence. We tested two hypotheses concerning the effect of group consensus on social influence: (a) that influence is a linear function of increasing consensus size, that is, the linear consensus hypothesis, large majority > small majority > large minority > small minority (Carlston, 1977;Gerard et al, 1968;Nordholm, 1975;Tanford & Penrod, 1984;Wolf & Latané, 1983), and (b) that consensus does not have an impact on influence but majority status does, which we call the majority source hypothesis, that is, large majority = small majority > large minority = small minority (Goldberg, 1954;Kidd, 1958;Mackie, 1987;Martin et al, 2002;Reis et al, 1976).…”

“…Some studies revealed a curvilinear relationship between consensus and influence (e.g., Asch, 1951;Kishida, 1956;Rosenberg, 1961), whereas other studies found a linear relationship between consensus level and influence (e.g., Carlston, 1977;Gerard et al, 1968;Lascu, Bearden, & Rose, 1995;Nordholm, 1975). However, another set of studies failed to find a linear relationship (e.g., Goldberg, 1954;Kidd, 1958;Reis, Earing, Kent, & Nezlek, 1976). The inconsistency among these findings has been attributed to the different tasks employed, the different manipulations of source, and the different perceptions of the majority (see Campbell & Fairey, 1989;Insko, Drenan, Solomon, Smith, & Wade, 1983;Wilder, 1977).…”