Past research has shown that minorities arguing in favor of the majority opinion within a given population (i.e. the ‘Zeitgeist’) are more powerful sources of social influence than minorities arguing against the normative population opinion (i.e. Clark & Maass, 1988a and b; Paicheler,1977). We studied the Zeitgeist effect within the context of freely interacting groups discussing the death penalty. In direct contrast to past research, minorities arguing against the death penalty Zeitgeist were more powerful sources of social influence than those arguing in favor of it. Analyses of conversation content and thought-listing data suggest that minorities arguing against the death penalty may have been more influential because they were appealing to a superordinate shared belief system within their respective groups.
Berkowitz, L. , & Howard, R. C. (1959). Reactions to opinion deviates as affected by affiliation need (n) and group member interdependence. Sociometry, 22, 81-91.
2.
Clark, R. D., III (1988). On predicting minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 515-526.
3.
Clark, R. D., III (1990). Minority influence: The role of argument refutation of the majority position and social support for the minority. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 489-497.
4.
Clark, R. D., III (1995). On being excommunicated from the European view of minority influence: A reply to Perez et al. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 711-714.
5.
Clark, R. D., III , & Maass, A. (1988a). Social categorization in minority influence: The case of homosexuality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 347-364.
6.
Clark, R. D., III , & Maass, A. (1988b). The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 381-394.
7.
Clark, R. D., III , & Maass, A. (1990). The effects of majority size on minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 119-132.
8.
Davis, J. A. , & Smith, T. W. (1996). General social surveys 1972-1996 [Machine-readable data file]. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center (Producer). Storrs, CT: Roper Public Opinion Research Center (Distributor).
9.
Davis, J. H. , Kerr, N. L., Stasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R. (1977). Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 346-365.
10.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 217-282.
11.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
12.
Jones, E. E. , & deCharms, R. (1957). Changes in social perception as a function of the personal relevance of behavior. Sociometry, 20, 75-85.
13.
Kerr, N. L. , & MacCoun, R. J. (1985). The effects of jury size and polling method on the process and product of jury deliberation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 349-363.
14.
Kruglanski, A. W. , & Mackie, M. (1990). Majority and minority influence: A judgmental process analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 229-261.
15.
Levine, J. M. (1980). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 187-231). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Levine, J. M. , & Russo, E. M. (1987). Majority and minority influence. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Maass, A. , & Clark, R. D., III (1984). The hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
18.
Maass, A. , Clark, R. D., III, & Haberkorn, G. (1982). The effects of differential ascribed category membership and norms on minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 89-104.
19.
Miller, C. E. , & Anderson, P. D. (1979). Group decision rules and the rejection of deviates. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 354-363.
20.
Miller, C. E. , Jackson, P., Mueller, J., & Schersching, C. (1987). Some social psychological effects of group decision rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 325-332.
21.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
22.
Moscovici, S. , Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365-379.
23.
Mugny, G. , & Perez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Nemeth, C. (1977). Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 38-56.
25.
Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
26.
Paicheler, G. (1976). Norms and attitude change: I. Polarization and styles of behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 405-427.
27.
Paicheler, G. (1977). Polarization of attitudes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 85-96.
28.
Perez, J. A. , Papastamou, S., & Mugny, G. (1995). ‘Zeitgeist’ and minority influence: Where is the causality?European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 703-710.
29.
Rose, R. (1954). Twelve angry men. Chicago: Dramatic Publishing.
30.
Smith, C. M. , Tindale, R. S., & Anderson, E. M. (in press) The impact of shared representations on minority influence in freely interacting groups. In C. de Dreu & N. de Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and innovation: Fundamental and applied perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
31.
Smith, C. M. , Tindale, R. S., & Dugoni, B. L. (1996). Minority and majority influence in freely interacting groups: Qualitative versus quantitative differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 137-149.
32.
Smith, C. M. , Tindale, R. S., & Steiner, L. (1998). Investment decisions by individuals and groups in ‘sunk cost’ situations: The potential impact of shared representations. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 175-189.
33.
Tindale, R. S. , Davis, J. H., Vollrath, D. A., Nagao, D. H., & Hinsz, V. B. (1990a). Asymmetrical social influence in freely interacting groups: A test of three models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 438-449.
34.
Tindale, R. S. , Filkins, J., Thomas, L. S., & Smith, C. M. (1993). An attempt to reduce conjunction errors in decision-making groups. Paper presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making meeting, Washington, DC, November.
35.
Tindale, R. S. , Sheffey, S., & Filkins, J. (1990b). Conjunction errors by individuals and groups. Paper presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making Meeting, New Orleans, November.
36.
Tindale, R. S. , Smith, C. M., Thomas, L. S., Filkins, J., & Sheffey, S. (1996). Shared representations and asymmetric social influence processes in small groups. In E. Witte & J. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups (Vol. 1, pp. 81-103). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
Vinokur, A. , & Burnstein, E. (1978). Depolarization of attitudes in groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 872-885.
38.
Wood, W. , Lundgren, S., Ouellette, A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.
