On being excommunicated from the European view of minority influence: A reply to Perez et al.
✍ Scribed by Russell D. Clark III
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1995
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 259 KB
- Volume
- 25
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0046-2772
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
s (in press) assessment of the literature on minority influence.
While there are crucial dflerences between majority and minority influence research, Z think the time has come for a reconsideration of the necessity and fruitjiulness of the extreme dichotomy between majority and minority influence. The Clark (1990) study
is only a step in that direction.
INTRODUCTKON
I read with puzzling interest the Perez, Papastamou, and Mugny (in press) comment on my 'Twelve Angry Men' article . While reading their brief article, which nicely summarizes the literature on minority influence, I could not escape the feeling that they were preaching to the choir. I totally agree with their assessment of the literature: (1) on a wide variety of objective and subject tasks, minority influence shows up on private, indirect or delayed public measures whereas majority influence is more likely to appear on direct or public measures of influence; (2) the minority message will generate more cognitive information processing than the majority message and (3) some form of a dual process model of social influence is necessary to account for these findings.
Until I read the Perez' et al. comment I thought I had repeatedly aligned myself' with the European view of social influence. All of my theoretical and empirical research on minority influence, most of which has been in association with Anne Maass, has strongly favoured the European view of minority influence. For example, in our studies that have employed the simultaneous social influence paradigm, where confoundings between the majority and minority source of influence and both the