The study examined reactions to stable and reversed majority and minority positions within a group or an aggregate of individuals. In support of the hypothesized asymmetrical reactions to changes within a group, it was found that change away from the majority position within a group decreased attraction and expectations for beneficial interactions with others, whereas change toward the majority position did not increase them. Change away from the majority position also increased appreciation for differences in opinions and perceptions of others’ mutual conformity within a group. As expected, preference for the majority position was weaker in an aggregate than in a group; in addition, there was no significant difference in the measured reactions to changes away and toward the majority position within an aggregate. Implications of changes for the functioning of social groups are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, V. L. (1985). Infra-group, intra-group and inter-group: Construing levels of organization in social influence. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 217-238). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
Baumeister, R. F. , & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
3.
Brendl, M. C. , & Higgins, T. E. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 95-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
5.
Brewer, M. B. , & Pickett, C. L. (1999). Distinctiveness motives as a source of the social self. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 71-87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.
7.
Dovidio, J. F. , Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109-120.
8.
Frable, D. E. S. , Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140-149.
9.
Gardner, W. L. , Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 486-496.
10.
Hamilton, D. L. , Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceiving social groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schloper, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Hogg, M. A. , & Turner, J. C. (1987). Social identity and conformity: A theory of referent information influence. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology, Vol.2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Kahneman, D. , & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
13.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. New York: Academic Press.
14.
Moscovici, S. (1994). Three concepts: Minority, conflict, and behavioral style. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maas (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 233-251). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
15.
Ng, S. , & Cram, F. (1988). Intergroup bias by defensive and offensive groups in majority and minority conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 749-757.
16.
Prislin, R. , Limbert, W. M., & Bauer, E. (2000). From majority to minority and vice versa: The asymmetrical effects of losing and gaining majority position within a group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 385-397.
17.
Rothgerber, H. (1997). External intergroup threat as an antecedent to perception in in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1206-1212.
18.
Sachdev, I. , & Bourhis, R. Y. (1984). Minimal majorities and minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 35-52.
19.
Sherif, M. (1966). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
20.
Sidanius, J. , & Veniegas. R. (2000). Gender and race discrimination: The interactive role of disadvantage. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The Claremont Symposium on Applied Psychology (pp. 47-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S., (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
22.
Turner, J. C. , & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Turner, J. C. , Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.
24.
Weisz, C. , & Jones, E. E. (1993). Expectancy disconfirmation and disposition inference: Latent strength of target-based and category-based expectancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 563-573.
