Using computer-mediated communication (CMC) groups as a context, this theoretical study aims at providing further specifications for the application of minority influence theory in small group research. Based on a focused literature review, this article proposes a framework that contextualizes strategic language use as an essential component of minority influence in CMC groups. Highlighting the role that unique features of CMC (e.g., interactive text-based communication, anonymity, salience of status markers) play in shaping and modifying minority influence in CMC groups, the proposed framework outlines testable propositions for future empirical studies.
AldagR. J.FullerS. R. (1993). Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 533-552. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.533
2.
AllenV. L.LevineJ. M. (1969). Consensus and conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 389-399. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(69)90032-8
3.
AschS. (1951). Effects of group pressures upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In GuetzkowH. (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
4.
AschS. (1952). Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
AschS. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31
6.
BaymN. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Malden, MA: John Wiley.
7.
BazarovaN. N.WaltherJ. B.McLeodP. L. (2012). Minority influence in virtual groups: A comparison of four theories of minority influence. Communication Research, 39, 295-316. doi:10.1177/0093650211399752
8.
BergerJ.CohenB. P.ZelditchM.Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241-555. doi:10.2307/2093465
9.
BergerJ.FisekM. H.NormanR. Z.ZelditchM.Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social Interaction: An expectation states approach. New York, NY: Elsevier.
10.
BeyerJ. L. (2014). Expect us: Online communities and political mobilization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11.
BhappuA. D.GriffithT. L.NorthcraftG. B. (1997). Media effects and communication bias in diverse groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 199-205. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2704
12.
CamachoL.PaulusM. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1071-1080. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1071
13.
CartwrightD.ZanderA. (1968). Group dynamics. London, England: Tavistock.
14.
ChangC. (2011). Enhancing self-referencing to health messages. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45, 147-164. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01196.x
15.
ChristophersonK. M. (2007). The positive and negative implications of anonymity in internet social interactions: “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 3038-3056. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.09.001
16.
CollarosP. A.AndersonL. A. (1969). Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Applied Psychology, 53, 159-163. doi:10.1037/h0027034
17.
ConnollyT.JessupL. M.ValacichJ. S. (1990). Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Management Science, 36, 689-703. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.6.689
18.
DavidB.TurnerJ. C. (1996). Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the out-group an advantage?British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 179-199. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01091.x
19.
De DreuC. K.De VriesN. K. (1993). Numerical support, information processing and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647-662. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420230608
20.
De DreuC. K.WestM. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
21.
DennisA. R.HilmerK. M.TaylorN. J.PolitoA. (1997). Information exchange and use in GSS and verbal group decision-making: Effects of minority influence. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 84-93). New York, NY: IEEE. doi:10.1109/HICSS.1997.665464
22.
DiehlM.StroebeW. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392-403. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.392
23.
EasterbrookJ. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on the utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201. doi:10.1037/h0047707
24.
FestingerL. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140. doi:10.1177/001872675400700202
25.
FoschiM.LaiL.SigersonK. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326-339. doi:10.2307/2787159
26.
FoschiM.WarrinerG. K.HartS. D. (1985). Standards, expectations, and interpersonal influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 108-117. doi:10.2307/3033606
27.
GiordanoP. C. (1983). Sanctioning the high-status deviant: An attributional analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 329-342. doi:10.2307/3033721
28.
HackmanJ. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
HollanderE. P.WillisR. H. (1967). Some current issues in the psychology of conformity and nonconformity. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 62-76. doi:10.1037/h0024731
30.
HollingsheadA. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision making: The effects of communication media. Human Communication Research, 23, 193-219. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00392.x
31.
JanisI. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
32.
JarvenpaaS. L.LeidnerD. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10, 791-815. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00080.x
33.
KieslerC. A.PallakM. S. (1975). Minority influence: The effect of majority reactionaries and defectors, and minority and majority compromisers, upon majority opinion and attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 237-256. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050208
34.
LareyT. S.PaulusP. B. (1995). Social comparison and goal setting in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2053-2075. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02634.x
35.
LawlerE. J. (1992). Affective attachments to nested groups: A choice-process theory. American Sociological Review, 57, 327-336. doi:10.2307/2096239
36.
LemusD.SeiboldD. R.FlanaginA. J.MetzgerM. J. (2004). Argument and decision making in computer-mediated groups. Journal of Communication, 54, 302-320. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02630.x
37.
LevineJ. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In PaulusP. (Ed.), Psychology of group influence: New perspectives (pp. 187-231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
LevineJ. M.RanelliC. J. (1978). Majority reaction to shifting and stable attitudinal deviates. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 55-70. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420080106
39.
MaassA.ClarkR. D. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.428
40.
MadianouM.LongboanL.OngJ. C. (2015). Finding a voice through humanitarian technologies? Communication technologies and participation in disaster recovery. International Journal of Communication, 9, 3020-3038.
41.
McGrathJ. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42.
McLeodP. L.BaronR. S.MartiM. W.YoonK. (1997). The eyes have it: Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 706-718. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.706
MoscoviciS. (1976). Social influence and social change. London, England: Academic Press.
45.
MoscoviciS. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239). New York, NY: Academic Press.
46.
MoscoviciS. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 342-417). New York, NY: Random House.
47.
MoscoviciS.FaucheuxC. (1972). Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 149-202. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60027-1
48.
MoscoviciS.LageE.NaffrechouxM. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365-380. doi:10.2307/2786541
49.
MoscoviciS.NemethC. (1974). Social influence: II. Minority influence. In NemethC. (Ed.), Social psychology, Classic and contemporary integrations (pp. 217-249). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
50.
MugnyG. (1975). Negotiations, image of the other and the process of minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 209-229. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050206
51.
MugnyG. (1982). The power of minorities. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
52.
MullenB.JohnsonC.SalasE. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1201_1
53.
NemethC. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
54.
NemethC. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273-291. doi:10.1521/soco.1995.13.3.273
55.
NemethC. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40, 59-74.
56.
NemethC. J.ChilesC. (1988). Modeling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 275-280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180306
57.
NemethC. J.KwanJ. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277-282. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
58.
NemethC. J.MayselessO.ShermanJ.BrownY. (1990). Exposure to dissent and recall of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 429-437. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.3.429
59.
NemethC. J.Nemeth-BrownB. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In PaulusP. B.NijstadB. A. (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 63-84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
60.
NemethC. J.SwedlundM.KankiB. (1974). Patterning of the minority’s responses and their influence on the majority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 53-64. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420040104
61.
NemethC. J.WachtlerJ. (1974). Creating the perceptions of consistency and confidence: A necessary condition for minority influence. Sociometry, 37, 529-540.
62.
NemethC. J.WachtlerJ. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 45-55. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420130103
63.
NemethC. J.WachtlerJ.EndicottJ. (1977). Increasing the size of the minority: Some gains and some losses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 15-27. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420070103
64.
PeñaJ.HancockJ. T. (2006). An analysis of socioemotional and task communication in online multiplayer video games. Communication Research, 33, 92-109. doi:10.1177/0093650205283103
65.
PfefferM. J. (1994). Labor and production barriers to the reduction of agricultural chemical inputs. Rural Sociology, 57, 347-362. doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00469.x
66.
PooleM. S.HolmesM. E. (1995). Decision development in computer-assisted group decision making. Human Communication Research, 22, 90-127. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00363.x
67.
PostmesT.SpearsR.CihangirS. (2001). Quality of decision-making and group norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 918-930. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.6.918
68.
PostmesT.SpearsR.LeaM. (1998). Breaching or building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 25, 689-715. doi:10.1177/009365098025006006
69.
RaoV. S.JarvenpaaS. L. (1991). Computer support of groups: Theory-based models for GDSS research. Management Science, 37, 1347-1362. doi:10.1287/mnsc.37.10.1347
70.
RyanK.OestreichD. K. (1991). Driving fear out of the workplace: How to overcome the invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
71.
SchachterS. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190-208. doi:10.1037/h0062326
72.
SherifM. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 187, 23-46.
73.
SilverS. D.TroyerL. (1998). Judging the consequences of evaluation by others in status heterogeneous groups: Biases in the microlevel heuristics of group information exchange. In LawlerE. J.SkvoretzJ.SzmatkaJ. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 15, pp. 103-132). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
74.
SpearsR.LeaM.CorneliussenR. A.PostmesT.Ter HaarW. (2002). Computer-mediated communication as a channel for social resistance: The strategic side of SIDE. Small Group Research, 33, 555-574. doi:10.1177/104649602237170
SwaabR. I.PhillipsK. W.SchaererM. (2016). Secret conversation opportunities facilitate minority influence in virtual groups: The influence on majority power, information processing, and decision quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 133, 17-32. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.07.003
77.
ThamelingC. L.AndrewsP. H. (1999). Majority perceptions of opinion deviates’ interpersonal attractiveness: A communicative analysis. Small Group Research, 30, 582-607. doi:10.1177/104649649903000505
78.
TomaC. L.D’AngeloJ. D. (2015). Tell-tale words: Linguistic cues used to infer the expertise of online medical advice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 25-45. doi:10.1177/0261927X14554484
79.
VoplatoC.MaassA.Muccho-FainaA.VittiE. (1990). Minority influence and social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 151-168. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420200204
80.
WagnerD. G. (1988). Status violations: Toward an expectation states theory of the social control of deviance. In Webster Jr.M.FosciM. (Eds.), Status generalization: New theory and research (pp. 110-122). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
81.
WaltherJ. B. (2012). Interaction through technological lenses: Computer-mediated communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31, 397-414. doi:10.1177/0261927X12446610
82.
WaltherJ. B.ParksM. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered in: Computer-mediated communication and relationships. In KnappM. L.DalyJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 529-563). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
83.
WeisbandS. P.SchneiderS. K.ConnollyT. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124-1151. doi:10.2307/256623
84.
WoodW.LundgrenS.OuelletteJ. A.BuscemeS.BlackstoneT. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.115.3.323
85.
YilmazG. (2016). What you do and how you speak matter: Behavioral and linguistic determinants of performance in virtual teams. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 76-97. doi:10.1177/0261927X15575772
86.
YilmazG.PeñaJ. (2015). How do interpersonal behaviors and social categories affect language use? The case of virtual teams. Communication Quarterly, 63, 427-443. doi:10.1080/01463373.2015.1058285
87.
YoungreenR.MooreC. D. (2008). The effects of status violations on hierarchy and influence in groups. Small Group Research, 39, 569-587. doi:10.1177/1046496408320120
