Group Resistance To Influence By a Conciliatory Member

Abstract

Subjects were assigned as groups or individuals to the communicator role in a Prisoner's Dilemma in which a simulated individual was the recipient. Each subject was also given either a conciliatory, tough, or individualistic assignment by an "outside" group of constituents the subjects were to represent in the interaction. Individuals, charged either to be conciliatory or tough, were compared with three types of groups: all-conciliatory; conciliatory/tough, in which one group member was charged to be conciliatory and the others were charged to be tough; and conciliatory/ in dividualistic. The results showed that conciliatory individuals did carry out their assignment and were more cooperative in their behavior, promised cooperation more, threatened less, and were more conciliatory in free communication than were tough individuals. The all-conciliatory groups did not differ from conciliatory individuals. The conciliatory members of mixed groups, however, were not successful in moderating their fellows. The mixed groups were both less cooperative and less conciliatory in their communications than the all-conciliatory groups. The results are discussed in terms of the formidable opposition faced by a conciliatory minority and the high likelihood that groups in conflict will be tough, rather than conciliatory.