Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables and Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Preface
- PART I INTRODUCTION
- PART II INFLUENCE NETWORK PERSPECTIVE ON SMALL GROUPS
- 5 Consensus Formation and Efficiency
- 6 The Smallest Group
- 7 Social Comparison Theory
- 8 Minority and Majority Factions
- 9 Choice Shift and Group Polarization
- PART III LINKAGES WITH OTHER FORMAL MODELS
- Epilogue
- Appendix A Fundamental Constructs and Equations
- Appendix B Total Influences and Equilibrium
- Appendix C Formal Analysis of Dyadic Influence Systems
- Appendix D Social Positions in Influence Networks
- Appendix E Goldberg's Index of Proportional Conformity
- Appendix F Gender-Homophilous Small Groups
- References
- Index
8 - Minority and Majority Factions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2011
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Tables and Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Preface
- PART I INTRODUCTION
- PART II INFLUENCE NETWORK PERSPECTIVE ON SMALL GROUPS
- 5 Consensus Formation and Efficiency
- 6 The Smallest Group
- 7 Social Comparison Theory
- 8 Minority and Majority Factions
- 9 Choice Shift and Group Polarization
- PART III LINKAGES WITH OTHER FORMAL MODELS
- Epilogue
- Appendix A Fundamental Constructs and Equations
- Appendix B Total Influences and Equilibrium
- Appendix C Formal Analysis of Dyadic Influence Systems
- Appendix D Social Positions in Influence Networks
- Appendix E Goldberg's Index of Proportional Conformity
- Appendix F Gender-Homophilous Small Groups
- References
- Index
Summary
Few studies on social influence have had the enduring impact of Asch's (1951; 1952; 1956) experiments on the conformity responses of individuals to a fixed unanimous majority. Asch's seminal investigation stimulated numerous studies, including work on the reverse situation – responses of a majority to a fixed minority position on an issue.
A common theme in social influence research has been the power of large versus small factions (though for counterexamples, see Moscovici, 1976; Nemeth, 1986). Many recent models of social influence, such as social impact theory (Latané, 1981; Latané and Wolfe, 1981), the other–total ratio (Mullen, 1983), and the social influence model (Tanford & Penrod, 1984) all use faction size as the central component. Research specifically focused on influence in small groups has demonstrated the power of larger versus smaller factions (e.g., Tindale, Davis, Vollrath, Nagao, & Hinsz, 1990), and majority/plurality and related faction-size models have often been found to provide excellent fits to empirical data (e.g., Davis, 1982; Hastie, Penrod, & Pennington, 1983; Tindale & Davis, 1983, 1985)….Thus, for many small decision-making groups, a majority or faction-size model of social influence in groups should provide a good baseline prediction (Tindale, et al. 1996: 81–2).
It is now widely recognized that minority factions, including a minority of one confronting a unanimous faction of n − 1 others, may be influential. In particular, the work of Moscovici and his colleagues (Moscovici 1985; Moscovici and Mugny 1983; Mugny 1982; Nemeth 1986) on small factions, although controversial, has driven home the point that the influence of persons who are not members of the majority faction also must be considered in any broad theory of group processes.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social Influence Network TheoryA Sociological Examination of Small Group Dynamics, pp. 185 - 210Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2011