Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recent research by Nemeth has suggested that minorities stimulate divergent thought (i.e., consideration of an issue from multiple perspectives) whereas majorities stimulate convergent thought (i.e., a focus on the issue from the perspective of that majority). Results have favored exposure to minority views because, in general divergent thought is conducive to improved performance. The proposition that majorities stimulate convergent thought from their perspective was tested, and it was demonstrated that in some situations majority views improve rather than hinder performance, by means of a task on which convergent thought enhances performance-the Stroop test Shown names of colors printed in inks of other colors, subjects have difficulty ignoring the printed color name. If, as hypothesized, majorities induce convergent thought, then majorities focusing on the color of ink should aid performance. Majorities focusing on the name of the color should hinder performance. Under exposure to minorities focusing on ink and minorities focusing on name, performance should not differ and should fall in between performance in the two majority conditions. The findings offer support for these hypotheses.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chaiken, S. , & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630.

Kahneman, D. , & Chajczyk, D. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 9, 497-509.

Kahneman, D. , & Henik, A. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual organization. Hills dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Keppel, G. , & Zedeck, S. (1989). Data analysis for research designs. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576-588.

Kruglanski, A. W. , & Mackie, D. M. (1990). Majority and minority influence: A judgmental process analysis. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European reviews of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 229-261). London: Wiley.

Latané, B. , & Wolf, S. (1981). The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychological Review, 88, 438-453.

Maass, A. , & Clark, R. D. III. (1984a). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.

Maass, A. , & Clark, R. D. III. (1984b). Internalization versus compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.

10.

Markus, H. , & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.

11.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

12.

Mucchi-Faina, A. , Maass, A. , & Volpato, C. (1989). Social influence The caw of orginaality Unpublished manuscript, University of Perugia, Italy.

13.

Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

14.

Nemeth, C. J. (1976, August). A comparison between conformity and minority influence. Paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology, Paris.

15.

Nemeth, CJ. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychotically Review, 93, 1-10.

16.

Nemeth, C. J. , & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277-282.

17.

Nemeth, CJ. , & Kwan, J. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 17, 788-799.

18.

Nemeth, CJ. , Mayseless, O. , Sherman, J. , & Brown, Y. (1990). Exposure to dissent and recall of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 429-437.

19.

Nemeth, CJ. , & Wachtler J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55.

20.

Perez, J. , & Mugny, G. (1986). Induction experimental d'une influence minoritaire indirecte. Cahiers de Psychologie Sociale, 32, 15-24.

21.

Ross, L. , Lepper, M. R. , & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880-892.

22.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 645-662.

23.

Tanford, S. , & Penrod, S. (1984). Social influence model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 189-225.

24.

Trost, M. R. , Maass, A. , & Kenrick, D. T. (1990). Minority influence. Ego involvement alters cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University.

When Convergent Thought Improves Performance: Majority Versus Minority Influence

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References