Hubbry Logo
Minority influenceMinority influenceMain
Open search
Minority influence
Community hub
Minority influence
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Minority influence
Minority influence
Minority influence
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Minority influence, a form of social influence, takes place when a member of a minority group influences the majority to accept the minority's beliefs or behavior. This occurs when a small group or an individual acts as an agent of social change by questioning established societal perceptions, and proposing alternative, original ideas which oppose the existing social norms.[1] There are two types of social influence: majority influence (resulting in conformity and public compliance) and minority influence (resulting in conversion). Majority influence refers to the majority trying to produce conformity on the minority, while minority influence is converting the majority to adopt the thinking of the minority group.[2] Unlike other forms of influence, minority influence is often thought of as a more innovative form of social change, because it usually involves a personal shift in private opinion. Examples of minority influence include the civil rights movement in the United States and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.

History

[edit]

Nearly all early research on minority influence focused on how the majority influenced the minority, based on the assumption of many psychologists that it would be very hard for the minority to have any influence on the majority. Moscovici had a different perspective, as he believed that it was possible for a minority influence to overcome majority influence. As a result, he conducted his own study on minority influence in 1969. Similar to Asch's (1951) 'blue-green' experiment, to see if a group of four participants were influenced by a minority. His research was important as it was one of the first studies to show that a minority was able to change the opinions of the majority. The research of Moscovici and his colleagues opened the door to more research on the subject.

Mechanism

[edit]

Moscovici's (1980, 1985) conversion theory outlines a dual process of social influence. When an individual's views differ from the majority view, this causes inner turmoil, motivating the individual to reduce conflict by using a comparison process, leading to compliance and public acceptance of the majority position to avoid ostracism and potential ridicule.[3] Therefore, majority influence is seen as normative social influence because often it is generated by a desire to fit in and conform to the group, e.g. Asch's (1951) line study. Conversely, a minority view is more distinctive, capturing attention and resulting in a validation process, where people carefully analyse the discrepancy between their own view and the minority view. This often results in attitude conversion, where the individual is convinced that the minority view is correct, which is much more likely to be private rather than public.

Majority influence occurs when people conform to certain beliefs and behaviours in order to be accepted by others. Unlike majority influence, minority influence can rarely influence others through normative social influence because the majority is indifferent to the minority's perspective of them. To influence the majority, the minority group would take the approach of informational social influence (Wood, 1994). By presenting information that the majority does not know or expect, this new or unexpected information catches the attention of the majority to carefully consider and examine the minority's view. After consideration, when the majority finds more validity and merit in the minority's view, the majority group has a higher chance of accepting part or all of the minority opinion.[4]

Although the majority group may accept part or all of the minority view, that fact does not necessarily indicate that the majority has been completely influenced by the minority. A study by Elizabeth Mannix and Margaret Ann Neale (2005) shows that having the support from the majority leader could prove to be the critical factor in getting the minority opinion to be heard and be accepted. The support of a leader gives the majority more confidence in the merit of the minority opinion, leading to an overall respect for the minority. The strength of the "key people" (Van Avermaet, 1996) comes from the reputation built from their consistency of behaviors and ideas. Involving key people will benefit the minority view because people are more open to hear from others whom they trust and respect.[5] In minority influence, a few influential leaders can influence the opposing majority to the minority's way of thinking.[6][7] Even small changes in the influence of a minority ideology can trigger substantial changes in behavior or beliefs.[8] In the end, having a more supportive and active minority group could lead to innovative and better decision-making.[9]

Affecting factors

[edit]

Size of minority

[edit]

Moscovici and Nemeth (1974) argue that a minority of one is more influential than a minority of more than one, as one person is more likely to be consistent over long periods of time and will not divide the majority's attention.[10] They explain that a person may question themself: "How can they be so wrong and yet so sure of themselves?", resulting in a tendency to reevaluate the entire situation, considering all possible alternatives, including the minority view. On the other hand, two people are more likely to be influential than one person as they are less likely to be seen as strange or eccentric. More recent research[11] has supported the latter due to the belief that a minority with two or more, if consistent, has more credibility and is therefore more likely to influence the majority.[10]

Size of majority

[edit]

The social impact model (Latané & Wolf 1981) predicts that as the size of the majority grows, the influence of the minority decreases, both in public and in private attitude change.[12] The social impact model further explains that social impact is the multiplicative effect of strength (power, status, knowledge), the immediacy (physical proximity and recency), and the number of group members, supporting the view that a minority will be less influential on a larger majority.

Clark and Maass (1990) looked at the interaction between minority influence and majorities of varying sizes, and found that, like Latané & Wolf's findings, the minority's influence decreases in a negatively accelerating power function as the majority increases.[13] This is reflected in findings that minority support should decrease considerably with the first few members of the majority, but additional members will have a marginally declining impact on getting people to conform to the majority position.

Similarly, Latané and Wolf cite Solomon Asch's work with "the magic number three". After his experiments, Asch concludes that when the majority consists of just one or two individuals, there is very little conformity. The addition of a third majority member dramatically increases conformity, but increases beyond three did not result in increasing amounts of conformity.[12]

Behavioural style

[edit]

Minority influence is more likely to occur if the point of view of the minority is consistent, flexible, and appealing to the majority. Having a consistent and unwavering opinion will increase the appeal to the majority, leading to a higher chance of adaption to the minority view. However, any wavering opinions from the minority group could lead the majority to dismiss the minority's claims and opinions.[14] Serge Moscovici and Nemeth (1974) argued that minority influence is effective as long as there is consistency over time and agreement among the members of the minority.[10] If this consistency were lost, then the minority would lose its credibility. This can be the case if a member of the minority deserts and joins the majority, as this damages the consistency and unity of the minority. After this occurrence, members of the majority are less likely to shift their position to that of the minority. The key to minority influence being successful is not just consistency, but how the majority interprets consistency. If the consistent minority are seen as too inflexible, rigid, and unwilling to change, they are unlikely to influence the majority. However, if they appear flexible and compromising, they will be seen as less extreme and more reasonable, having a better chance of changing majority views.[15]

Dispositional and situational factors

[edit]

Research shows that individuals are more likely to listen to the minority and take on their ideas if they identify with them as being similar to themselves. Maass & Clark (1984) arranged for a group of heterosexual participants to hear a debate on gay rights. The results showed that the majority heterosexual group debating was easier for the heterosexual participants to relate to. Therefore, the minority homosexual group had less of an influence. Influence is more likely to occur if the minority (or majority) is part of our 'in-group' as we are more likely to be influenced by those who are similar to us. This research contradicts with Moscovici's view that deviant minorities (or out-groups) are essential for minority influence to occur. In-group minorities are more likely to be successful, as they are seen as part of the group, and therefore their ideas are seen as more acceptable. On the other hand, out-groups are more likely to be discriminated, as they are not seen as part of the group, causing them to seem strange or unusual.[16]

In addition, the decisions of others may affect the potency of minority influence. Asch (1952) conducted a study in which test subjects would be accompanied one of two "partners" during a series of questions posed to a group: a) a partner that would agree with the subject's minority view, or b) a partner that would be more extremely incorrect than the majority. Asch found that regardless of the role of the "partner", the fact that the consensus was broken – even if by just one individual ("the magic number one") – was enough to reduce conformity to a majority, and add credibility to the minority view.[17]

Application: juries

[edit]

Jury dynamics

[edit]

Stories, evidence and verdicts

[edit]

Most juries will elect a leader and then decide whether the voting for a verdict will be public or private. Using the Story Model Theory which suggests that cognitive processing of trial information is what drives jurors to mentally organize evidence in coherent, credible narratives, jurors will approach a verdict in one of two ways. Verdict Driven jurors sort the evidence into categories of guilty and not guilty before deliberation. This type of juror feels the need to reach a verdict quickly, and may feel social pressure outside of the group to deliver the decision in a time-efficient manner. On the other hand, Evidence Based jurors will resist making a final decision on the verdict until they have reviewed all the evidence. Such jurors tend to explore their different options as a group and are less influenced by the social pressure outside of the group to reach a verdict quickly.[18]

Minority influence in juries

[edit]

The verdict favored by the majority on the first ballot becomes the jury's final decision in about 90% of all jury trials. Minorities, then, do have some influence over the outcome. When a jury is hung, it is usually because one or two jurors are holding out, or resisting the influence of the majority. If these jury members are consistent in their views, it is likely they will be able to convince another member of the jury to also side with their view. As time goes on, more and more jurors may change their vote in favor of the original minority. It is, however, extremely important the original jurors are consistent and confident in their opinions. The more unsteady they appear, the less likely they are to conquer the majority.[18]

Status and influence in juries

[edit]

Members of a jury who have high prestige or status are usually more influential than members who are not. Members who are also of high socioeconomic status are also more likely to influential in the jury deliberation process. This is demonstrated by the correlation between private preliberation opinion and jury's final decision was .50 for rich members and .2 for laborers. However, in recent analysis, race and sex no longer determine influence in juries.[18]

Improving juries

[edit]
  1. Jury Size: modifying could influence group structure, representativeness, and majority influence; large juries are more likely to be hung, but small and large juries do not significantly differ in the types of verdicts reached.
  2. Unanimity: juries that do not have to reach a unanimous decision render their judgements twice as quickly and are less likely to be hung.
  3. Procedural Innovation: we can improve juries by making the instructions given to juries (prior to deliberation) clearer and more understandable. If the members understand at the beginning of the process what their requirements are, then they will be more efficient in their delivery of the verdict, and be more understanding of the process.[18]

Yielding

[edit]

Social cryptoamnesia

[edit]

After a number of members have shifted their opinion to agree with the minority group, that minority becomes a majority. This is known as the snowball effect.[19] When a minority creates social change in society, the new view becomes an integral part of the society's culture. This results in the source of the minority influence that led to change being forgotten, which is known as social cryptoamnesia.[20] Minority influence can be successful if people can dissociate between the socio-cognitive activities of resistance that are induced by the source and other activities of resistance that develop from the content of the message. The process of dissociation is explained by social cryptoamnesia:[20] what was originally considered different is gradually constructed as an alternative (Perez, 1995).

A person can be affected by minority influence whether directly or indirectly. However, if one is not aware of the influence, the minority ideas could be taken as one's own while disregarding where the original idea came from. Social cryptoamnesia explains that thoughts and ideas that challenge or shock are stored in latent memory without retaining the ownership of the idea. Ideas that were supposedly forgotten have reappeared in the person's mind as his or her own belief or thought.[20] This major attitude change takes place when the zeitgeist has changed. In history, minorities have changed the attitudes of society, and the attitudes of society have changed the personal opinion of the majority in that society. Although minority influence may not affect a person immediately, one's beliefs and behaviors may change over time due to social cryptoamnesia.

Broadening views in organizations

[edit]

By integrating the theory of minority influence in organizations, people may be more open to learning and change, benefiting the organization in the end.

Increasing diversity in the workplace

[edit]

Not only is minority influence seen in social groups, but this type of social influence is also present in the workplace. Incorporating the concept of minority influence can encourage diversity and change in a corporate organization. Mannix and Neale (2005) performed a case study on a company that asked all the senior managers to mentor junior managers, preparing at least three younger managers to be ready and competent enough to replace the older managers. From this study, the firm realized that they were not achieving the extent of diversity that they intended. As a result, the company required at least one of the three junior managers in training to be a woman or underrepresented minority. This new requirement improved the intended diversity in the organization as well as the interaction between the senior manager mentor and the junior manager mentee.[9]

Improving organizational values and culture

[edit]

In another study by Mannix and Neale, yearly performance evaluations were completed for Hispanic, African American, and Asian managers. Their performance reviews evaluated the managers on less tangible measures related to leadership, an essential factor that is considered for receiving a promotion. Upon reflection of the company's performance evaluations, a senior leader suggested that the criteria on which managers were assessed was biased toward a "white, Anglo management style" (Mannix, 2005). As a solution, the leadership performance and promotion criteria of the performance reviews were revised. From this change and inclusion of minority influence, managers were able to learn from their strengths and weaknesses and change. Along with changing the criteria of performance evaluations, the organization itself underwent a change in values and culture.[9]

Combined with majority influence

[edit]

There is evidence to suggest that it is possible for minority influence and majority influence to work together. A study by Clark (1994) uses a jury setting from the film 12 Angry Men to investigate social influence. Some of the participants were asked to just read the arguments from one of the characters (who acted as the minority), while the other group were also told how he changed the opinion of the rest of the jury.[21] Social influence was present in both groups, but was stronger in the group that was exposed to both the arguments (minority influence) and the knowledge that the jury conformed (majority influence).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Minority influence

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Minority influence refers to the process in whereby a smaller numerical group exerts persuasive effects on the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors of a larger , typically fostering deeper cognitive change and rather than superficial compliance. Unlike majority influence, which often induces public through normative pressure, minority influence operates indirectly via informational routes, prompting majority members to reconsider and convert their private views. This distinction arises because minorities challenge prevailing norms, stimulating systematic processing and validation of novel ideas among recipients. The concept gained prominence through Serge Moscovici's seminal 1969 experiment, in which groups of participants judged the color of 36 slides varying in blueness; two minority confederates consistently labeled unambiguously blue slides as green, influencing judgments on 8.42% of trials compared to 1.25% in an inconsistent-minority condition and 0.25% in controls. Effectiveness hinges on key behavioral factors, including consistency (both immediate synchronic agreement and sustained temporal adherence to the position), commitment (demonstrating confidence and investment in the view), and flexibility (selective compromise without rigid dogmatism to avoid dismissal as unreasonable). These elements enable minorities to diverge from validation-seeking dynamics, instead triggering majority doubt and eventual internalization. Minority influence underscores the potential for small, resolute groups to drive and attitude shifts, as evidenced in meta-analyses showing reliable though modest effects across diverse . Its theoretical framework highlights minorities' role in fostering originality against dominant views, with implications for understanding historical shifts where persistent advocacy—such as in scientific challenges or policy reforms—alters entrenched . Empirical reviews confirm that while influence magnitude is smaller than majority effects, it uniquely promotes latent change detectable in delayed measures, emphasizing causal pathways rooted in conflict-induced elaboration over mere social pressure.

Historical Development

Origins and Foundational Research

The concept of minority influence emerged in during the late 1960s as a to dominant theories emphasizing majority-driven , such as Solomon Asch's 1951 line judgment experiments, which demonstrated how groups induce compliance through normative pressure. , a Romanian-born French , initiated this shift by arguing that numerical minorities, when behaving consistently and confidently, could engender deeper attitudinal change rather than mere surface-level agreement, drawing on observations of historical social movements where small groups catalyzed shifts like the abolition of or civil rights advancements. This perspective challenged the era's focus on influence as unidirectional from majority to minority, positing instead that minorities foster innovation through informational processes that prompt majority reevaluation. Foundational empirical support came from Moscovici's seminal 1969 experiment, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, which tested minority effects in a perceptual task. Involving 192 female participants divided into groups of six (four genuine subjects and two confederates posing as participants), the study presented 36 slides varying in blueness; objectively, all were blue, but confederates labeled them green. In the consistent condition, confederates uniformly called every slide green, yielding an average of 8.42% "green" responses from participants across trials, compared to 1.25% in a control group without minority ; notably, 32% of participants endorsed at least one "green" judgment, indicating targeted influence. An inconsistent condition, where confederates varied responses (green on two-thirds of trials), reduced influence to levels akin to the control, underscoring behavioral consistency as pivotal. This work by Moscovici, Lage, and Naffre established minority influence as distinct from processes, with effects manifesting as latent rather than immediate —evidenced by higher private agreement in post-task measures. Building directly on this, Moscovici's subsequent theoretical elaboration in the 1970s, including his 1976 book Social Influence and Social Change, formalized mechanisms like cognitive conflict, where minority positions validate divergent views and stimulate validation-seeking. Early replications and extensions, such as those examining flexibility alongside consistency, affirmed the paradigm's robustness, though critics noted the lab setting's artificiality limited . These origins positioned minority influence as a framework for understanding , influencing later research on real-world in juries and .

Key Experiments by Moscovici and Others

In 1969, , along with collaborators Arlette Lage and Margarite Naffrechoux, conducted a foundational experiment to test whether a consistent minority could influence a in a perceptual judgment task. The study involved 192 female participants divided into groups of six, with four genuine participants and two confederates posing as participants in experimental conditions. Participants viewed 36 slides projected sequentially, consisting of 12 unambiguously blue-green slides and 24 varying in blue intensity (from faint to vivid); they verbally reported the color perceived on each trial. In the consistent minority condition, the confederates uniformly labeled all blue slides as "green," demonstrating unwavering behavioral consistency across trials. A control condition lacked confederates, while an inconsistent minority condition had confederates labeling blue slides as "green" only two-thirds of the time and "blue" one-third, to assess the role of variability in minority responses. The results revealed that the consistent minority exerted measurable influence: participants in this condition produced "green" responses on 8.42% of the critical blue slide trials, compared to just 0.25% in the control groups where no minority pressure existed. In contrast, the inconsistent minority yielded only 1.25% "green" responses, underscoring that minority effectiveness hinges on persistent, non-wavering advocacy rather than mere deviation. Approximately 33% of participants exposed to the consistent minority deviated from the majority at least once by calling a blue slide "green," indicating surface-level influence, though deeper conversion (private acceptance) was not directly measured in this initial study. These findings challenged prevailing conformity paradigms, such as Asch's work, by demonstrating that minorities could induce public compliance without numerical superiority, provided they maintained systematic consistency. Building on this, Moscovici and colleagues later explored minority influence in perceptual tasks emphasizing conversion over mere compliance. In a 1974 study co-authored with Charlan Nemeth, researchers examined latent effects by having participants estimate the number of blue dots in displays after exposure to minority or influence attempts; the minority condition, where confederates consistently dissented, led to greater divergence in private judgments post-exposure, suggesting deeper cognitive processing and validation rather than superficial yielding. Nemeth's independent extensions, such as 1970s jury simulations, further tested minority impact in decision-making contexts: in mock trials, a single dissenting minority juror prompted more evidence scrutiny and unique solutions from the group compared to unanimous majorities, fostering innovative thinking without altering verdicts directly. These experiments collectively established empirical grounds for minority influence as a driver of attitudinal and behavioral change, distinct from majority-induced , with consistency emerging as a pivotal mechanism across paradigms.

Theoretical Mechanisms

Consistency and Commitment

In minority influence theory, consistency denotes the minority's unwavering behavioral style in articulating and defending its position, both temporally (over repeated exposures) and synchronically (uniformity among minority members), which fosters perceptions of and validity in the minority's viewpoint. This consistency generates cognitive conflict in majority members by challenging prevailing norms without appearing erratic, thereby prompting deeper processing and potential private of the minority position rather than superficial compliance. Empirical support derives from controlled experiments where consistent minorities elicited greater attitude shifts; for instance, synchronic consistency has been shown to enhance influence by psychologizing the minority's stance as principled rather than deviant. Commitment complements consistency by involving the minority's demonstrable investment in its cause, such as through persistent or willingness to incur social costs, which signals and dedication, making dismissal of the position more psychologically taxing for the majority. High commitment amplifies influence when paired with consistency, as it conveys unyielding belief rather than opportunism, leading to indirect effects like delayed conversions or behavioral changes over time. Studies indicate that committed minorities, by rejecting prematurely, heighten their impact on majority latent attitudes, with effects persisting beyond immediate interactions. Key experimental evidence stems from Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux's 1969 study, where a two-person minority consistently calling slides "" influenced naive participants to concur on 8.2% of 36 trials, versus only 1.25% influence from an inconsistent minority that varied responses two-thirds of the time; this 6.95 difference underscores consistency's causal role in overriding perceptual norms through validation of the deviant judgment. Similarly, Nemeth and Wachtler's 1974 mock experiment revealed that minorities perceived as consistent and confident—via uniform argumentation—swayed verdicts on compensation more effectively than inconsistent ones, attributing influence to induced perceptions of reliability rather than numerical power. Meta-analytic reviews of such paradigms confirm moderate effect sizes for consistency (r ≈ 0.20–0.30), with commitment moderating outcomes by enhancing resistance to counterarguments, though effects diminish if rigidity precludes flexibility. These mechanisms operate via informational rather than normative routes, as consistent, committed minorities prompt majority members to reconsider assumptions, evidenced by increased idea generation and post-exposure; however, over-rigidity can backfire if interpreted as dogmatism, highlighting the need for calibrated commitment to avoid alienation. Real-world analogs, such as civil rights advocates maintaining steadfast positions amid opposition, align with lab findings, though field validations remain sparser due to confounding variables.

Behavioral Style and Flexibility

In minority influence theory, behavioral style encompasses the consistent and assertive manner in which a articulates its position, distinguishing it from mere deviance by signaling confidence and reliability. Moscovici et al. (1969) demonstrated that a minority exhibiting synchronic consistency (uniform responses among members) and diachronic consistency (steadfastness over trials) influenced judgments in 8.42% of cases in a color task, compared to only 1.25% for inconsistent minorities. This style fosters cognitive conflict, prompting the to reevaluate its norms rather than dismiss the minority outright. Complementing consistency, flexibility in behavioral style—manifested as moderate on peripheral issues while upholding core positions—prevents perceptions of dogmatism and enhances persuasiveness. Mugny (1975) found that, among equally consistent minorities, those employing a flexible style exerted greater influence than rigid counterparts, as flexibility signals reasonableness and shared ground with the . Similarly, Mugny and Papastamou (1980) showed that flexible minorities were more effective at , avoiding the backlash associated with inflexibility. Empirical support for flexibility's role includes Nemeth's (1986) mock experiment, where a minority advocating low compensation for an accident victim influenced the majority's award decision only when flexibly adjusting to a slightly higher figure (yielding verdicts), whereas a rigid stance produced no such effect. This suggests that behavioral flexibility promotes deeper processing and validation-seeking in the majority, contrasting with the surface-level rejection of dogmatic minorities, though it must balance against undermining the minority's distinctiveness. Overall, optimal minority influence arises from a dynamic interplay: unwavering consistency on essentials paired with adaptive flexibility to build legitimacy.

Cognitive Conflict and Informational Influence

In minority influence processes, the consistent dissent of a numerical minority generates cognitive conflict within majority members, disrupting the assumption of consensus and prompting deeper validation of arguments rather than superficial acceptance. This conflict manifests as an internal tension between the majority's established position and the minority's alternative viewpoint, leading to systematic and consideration of multiple perspectives. Moscovici (1976) theorized that such cognitive conflict endures longer than the elicited by majorities, which typically resolves through public compliance without private reevaluation. Experimental evidence supports this: in perceptual judgment tasks, minority consistency induced latent attitude shifts, with participants later categorizing stimuli differently in private settings, indicating unresolved cognitive . This cognitive conflict underpins informational influence, where the minority's position is scrutinized for its informational value—providing arguments or that challenges the —rather than exerting normative pressure to conform. Unlike majority influence, which relies on the desire for social approval and often yields focused on consensus, minority informational influence fosters , enhancing problem-solving by encouraging exploration of overlooked options. Nemeth (1976) demonstrated this in studies where groups exposed to minority detected correct solutions in hidden-figure tasks at higher rates (e.g., improved accuracy in identifying embedded shapes) compared to majority-aligned groups, attributing the effect to broadened cognitive search prompted by . Subsequent meta-analyses confirm that minority exposure yields indirect private influence measures, such as enhanced recall across idea categories, reflecting informational processing without overt persuasion. The interplay of cognitive conflict and informational influence explains minority-driven innovation: persistent minority arguments compel majority members to resolve conflict through evidence-based reevaluation, often yielding attitude conversion over time. For instance, in socio-cognitive conflict paradigms, minority views initially heighten validation efforts but gradually integrate into cognition, as seen in longitudinal attitude tracking post-exposure. However, this mechanism requires minority behavioral consistency to sustain perceived ; inconsistent dissent attenuates conflict resolution toward informational validation. Empirical differentiation from effects holds across domains, with minorities promoting in idea generation tasks while majorities reinforce efficiency in routine judgments.

Factors Affecting Minority Influence

Numerical and Demographic Variables

The influence exerted by a increases with its numerical size, but this relationship is positively accelerated with diminishing marginal returns, such that the addition of the first few members yields the greatest gains in persuasiveness. posits that minority influence approximates a square root function of group size (e.g., I ≈ kN^{0.5}), where early increments enhance perceived consistency and visibility, but further additions dilute the signal of unified commitment. In perceptual judgment tasks, minorities of three members produced significantly greater shifts in responses than minorities of one or two, with no further gains beyond three. A minority of one can still generate influence under conditions of high behavioral consistency, as it signals and rather than mere deviance, though this requires sustained patterning of responses to avoid dismissal as idiosyncratic. group size inversely affects minority success, with larger majorities amplifying normative pressures that suppress deviance validation, thereby reducing the minority's capacity to induce cognitive conflict. Demographic attributes tied to perceived status and moderate minority influence, often amplifying effects for numerically small groups. High-expertise minorities elicit greater acceptance by framing their position as informatively driven rather than rigidly oppositional, with experimental manipulations showing expert sources shifting attitudes 20-30% more than low-expertise counterparts in tasks. further bolsters this, as higher-status minorities (e.g., those evoking respect via occupational or hierarchical cues) experience reduced reactance and increased systematic processing of their arguments compared to low-status ones. Evidence for other demographic variables like or is limited and context-dependent; mixed-gender minorities may disrupt influence patterns in homogeneous majority settings due to heightened scrutiny of cross-gender consistency, but no robust main effects emerge across paradigms without interaction with behavioral style. These variables operate causally through attributions of , where low-status demographics heighten perceptions of , necessitating compensatory consistency to achieve latent influence.

Situational and Individual Dispositions

Situational factors significantly moderate the effectiveness of minority influence. Task characteristics, such as whether the issue involves objective facts (intellective tasks) or subjective judgments (e.g., attitudes or values), determine influence outcomes; minorities exert stronger effects on judgmental tasks by inducing cognitive conflict and validation-seeking, whereas intellective tasks favor consensus due to perceived expertise differentials. Social identity context further shapes responses: in-group minorities generate less defensiveness and higher rates than out-group minorities, which often provoke or dismissal unless accompanied by status cues like . Interactive settings, including group discussions, enhance minority impact by promoting systematic message elaboration and shifts, compared to solitary exposure where effects remain primarily latent or private. Individual dispositions of minority members and majority recipients also play critical roles. Among minorities, authentic motivations—such as genuine truth-seeking rather than simulated —foster and perceived credibility, leading to greater ; role-played positions, by contrast, yield minimal influence. Recipient traits like high and correlate with increased susceptibility, as these dispositions encourage deeper processing of minority arguments and reduce reliance on normative cues. Conversely, high dogmatism in majority members heightens resistance by promoting rigid adherence to dominant views and viewing minority positions as threats. Motivational orientations tied to dispositions, including epistemic drives for accuracy versus social needs for validation, influence processing depth; minorities aligned with recipients' control or acceptance motives can shift toward conversion, though initial cohesion may temporarily decline. These factors underscore that minority success hinges on aligning behavioral styles with contextual and personal susceptibilities, often yielding indirect effects measurable in delayed behavioral intentions rather than immediate compliance.

Empirical Evidence

Laboratory Studies and Findings

In , Mireille Lage, and Léon Naffrechoux's seminal 1969 laboratory experiment, groups of six female participants (four naïve and two confederates posing as participants) viewed 36 slides of varying shades of color and verbally reported the dominant hue. The confederates, representing the minority, consistently labeled unambiguously slides as across all trials in the consistent condition (n=96 participants across four groups), leading to influence on 8.42% of majority responses compared to 0.25% in control groups without minority input; in the inconsistent condition, where confederates called the slides on only two-thirds of trials, influence dropped to 1.25%. Additionally, 32% of participants in the consistent condition reported at least one slide as , indicating a latent perceptual shift validated by post-experiment color tests, whereas inconsistent yielded negligible effects. Subsequent laboratory studies by Charlan Nemeth and colleagues extended these findings to decision-making contexts. In Nemeth and Joel Wachtler's 1974 mock jury experiment, groups of five participants (one minority confederate) deliberated a case, with the minority advocating a lenient ; while public judgments showed no compliance, private post-deliberation attitudes shifted significantly toward the minority position, suggesting deeper informational influence rather than mere . Nemeth's 1976 and 1983 experiments on a task exposed participants to minority or dissent regarding solution identification; minority dissent promoted , resulting in detection of more correct solutions overall, whereas majority dissent confined responses to majority-endorsed options, highlighting minorities' role in enhancing . A 1994 meta-analysis by Wendy , Robin Lundgren, et al., synthesizing 97 laboratory experiments on minority influence, confirmed that minorities exert weaker overt effects than (effect size d ≈ 0.18 for minorities vs. higher for majorities) but achieve greater private acceptance through perceived consistency and behavioral style. Consistent minorities were particularly effective (strong positive with influence), often inducing latent disagreement with the majority that surfaced in indirect measures, though effects diminished without flexibility to avoid rigidity perceptions. These controlled settings, typically using perceptual or judgmental tasks with small groups (often 4-6 members), underscored minorities' capacity for conversion via cognitive conflict, albeit with limitations in due to artificial stimuli and short-term exposure.

Real-World Examples and Case Studies

The suffragette movement in the , beginning with the formation of the in 1903 under , exemplifies minority influence through persistent, consistent advocacy despite widespread societal opposition to . Campaigners employed tactics such as public demonstrations, hunger strikes during imprisonments, and refusal to yield on core demands for voting rights, which created cognitive conflict among the majority and gradually shifted public opinion via deeper processing of gender equality arguments. This behavioral style—marked by commitment and flexibility in alliances while maintaining ideological consistency—contributed to legislative breakthroughs, including the Representation of the People Act 1918 granting to women over 30 and full enfranchisement by 1928. In the United States civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, a numerical minority of African Americans and allies, led by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., exerted influence on the white majority through non-violent protests and unwavering consistency against segregation norms. Key events, such as the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott following Rosa Parks' arrest and the 1963 March on Washington drawing over 250,000 participants, demonstrated sacrifice and behavioral commitment, fostering latent acceptance of equality principles beyond mere compliance. These efforts culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, illustrating how minority dissent can drive systemic change by validating alternative viewpoints and prompting majority reevaluation. Environmental activism provides contemporary case studies, as seen in minority-led pushes for where small, consistent advocate groups challenge prevailing economic norms favoring resource extraction. For instance, early campaigns by groups like in the 1970s, advocating against nuclear testing and through and persistent messaging, induced informational influence by highlighting ecological risks, leading to international agreements such as the 1982 moratorium on commercial by the . Research indicates that such minorities succeed by amplifying voice in policy arenas, with studies showing their role in initiating broader societal shifts toward despite initial majority resistance.

Applications in Decision-Making Contexts

Jury Dynamics and Verdicts

In jury deliberations, a numerical minority of jurors advocating a dissenting position can exert influence on the through consistent argumentation and systematic behavioral styles, often fostering deeper cognitive processing rather than immediate compliance. Mock experiments demonstrate that such minorities rarely achieve public shifts in verdicts but can produce latent effects, where exposed jurors privately adjust their views post-deliberation. For instance, in a 1974 study simulating a compensation case, participants exposed to a consistent minority confederate resisted public alignment yet showed significant private endorsement of the minority's lower award recommendation, highlighting informational influence via validation processes. Decision rules critically moderate these dynamics: unanimity requirements amplify minority impact by compelling engagement with , yielding more fact-based discussions and enhanced perceptions of procedural fairness, even if verdicts remain unchanged. In contrast, majority-rule conditions (e.g., 2/3 threshold) diminish minority sway, as majorities can disregard outliers without deadlock. Nemeth's analyses of mock juries in first-degree scenarios revealed that unanimity promoted robust deliberations, with minorities stimulating and novel solution detection, thereby improving overall verdict quality over superficial consensus under majority rules. Empirical evidence underscores limited but meaningful effects on verdicts: predeliberation preferences predict final outcomes in approximately 90% of cases, yet consistent minorities convert initial majorities in 10-20% of instances through flexibility—adapting arguments without rigidity—rather than dogmatism, which provokes rejection. Dissenting minorities also reduce premature guilty verdicts by inducing conflict that prompts evidence reexamination, as seen in simulations where minority advocacy for innocence led to higher rates when paired with behavioral confidence. U.S. rulings, such as Johnson v. Louisiana (1972), implicitly endorse this by recognizing minority jurors' role in preventing hasty convictions via persistent challenge. These processes align with broader minority influence principles, where jury minorities generate epistemic benefits like error correction, though success hinges on avoiding isolation tactics that reinforce majority entrenchment. Real-world applications remain indirect, as archival on actual juries is scarce, but laboratory findings suggest minorities safeguard against , potentially averting wrongful verdicts in 1 in 8 cases prone to error from undue .

Organizational and Workplace Influence

In organizational contexts, minority influence refers to the process by which numerical minorities, such as dissenting team members or newcomers, persuade majorities to adopt innovative practices or revise established norms, often enhancing decision quality through . This mechanism counters pressures and , promoting systematic information processing and in teams. Empirical research demonstrates that consistent, confident minority positions stimulate broader option consideration, leading to superior outcomes compared to mere consensus-seeking. Laboratory simulations of tasks reveal specific conditions amplifying minority impact. In a 2004 study involving 47 three-person teams performing an air-surveillance , newcomers exerted greater influence on changes when teams operated under assigned (versus self-chosen) initial strategies and had experienced (versus ), with influence measured by majority adoption rates of proposed alterations. Such findings indicate that perceived legitimacy deficits or performance setbacks heighten openness to minority input, positioning dissenters as agents of adaptation rather than disruptors. Dissent from minorities also facilitates norm transitions in work units, such as shifting from to behaviors. For instance, minority advocates of prosocial norms can catalyze helping practices when their arguments highlight mutual benefits and consistency, as evidenced in field observations of where persistent minority voices increased efficacy and reduced free-riding. In corporate settings, teams encouraging private —mirroring minority influence processes—exhibit higher performance; a 1998 analysis of 57 project teams found that those fostering such input generated more original ideas and achieved greater success rates. Applications extend to , where minority influence mitigates rigidity. Authentic outperforms simulated challenges (e.g., devil's ), yielding more novel solutions in problem-solving tasks, as shown in experiments where groups exposed to genuine minority views detected correct answers at rates 15-20% higher than controls. Organizations prioritizing voice mechanisms, such as anonymous feedback channels, thus leverage minorities to drive learning and adaptability, though excessive conflict risks polarization if not balanced with integration.

Interactions with Majority Influence

Yielding and Latent Effects

In the context of interactions between majority and minority influence processes, yielding refers to the surface-level public compliance observed primarily in response to majority , where individuals conform outwardly without corresponding private . This contrasts with the deeper, more persistent effects generated by minority influence, which often evade immediate public yielding but produce latent transformations in beliefs and behaviors. Empirical studies demonstrate that consistent minorities, through their steadfast positioning, foster systematic processing of arguments, leading to indirect influence that emerges over time or in novel situations, rather than direct . Latent effects of minority influence manifest as delayed or hidden attitude shifts, where initial resistance to the minority view gives way to gradual adoption, particularly when the minority's consistency challenges assumptions and prompts validation-seeking behaviors. Meta-analytic evidence indicates these effects are most pronounced on private and indirect measures of influence, with consistent minorities exerting greater impact than inconsistent ones by undermining perceptual norms and encouraging deeper cognitive elaboration. In combined influence scenarios, such as group discussions, the 's normative pull may suppress overt yielding to the minority, yet latent processes enable the minority's position to seed doubt and eventual conversion, contributing to broader without immediate consensus. These dynamics highlight a key asymmetry: while majority influence yields quick but shallow compliance—often measured at 30-40% in perceptual tasks like Asch's line judgments—minority influence prioritizes conversion theory's emphasis on conflict-induced validation, resulting in behavioral predictions that align more closely with private acceptance over time. Experimental findings from blue-green color perception tasks, originally conducted by Moscovici et al. in 1969, showed minorities influencing only 8.2% of direct responses but higher latent agreement in subsequent indirect assessments, underscoring the delayed potency of minority consistency. Such effects persist in real-world analogs, where minorities like civil rights advocates in the 1960s U.S. achieved latent societal shifts despite minimal initial yielding from majorities.

Combined Influence Processes

Tanford and Penrod's 1984 Social Influence Model integrates majority and within a probabilistic framework, positing that the likelihood of adopting a position depends on the cumulative impact of all sources in a group, calculated as the product of individual impacts weighted by source size and discrepancy from the individual's initial position. Larger majorities exert stronger normative pressure through social impact, while smaller minorities contribute via informational cues, particularly when their positions are consistently defended despite high discrepancy. This model predicts combined effects in decision contexts like juries, where minority holdouts (e.g., 1-2 dissenters in 12-person groups) reduce conviction rates from near-unanimity to approximately 60-70% in simulations, as persistent minority advocacy amplifies doubt and delays consensus. In interactive , combined processes emerge when minorities trigger systematic processing—deep evaluation of arguments—complementing majority-driven processing, which prioritizes surface-level agreement. Martin and Hewstone's Source-Context-Elaboration Model (2008) formalizes this integration, specifying that under high elaboration (e.g., personally relevant tasks), minorities gain traction by validating novel perspectives, whereas dominate low-elaboration scenarios through comparison processes; empirical tests show minorities influencing 15-20% of responses in high-motivation conditions versus under 5% in low. Such enhances group performance, as evidenced in problem-solving tasks where minority alongside majority evaluation yields 25-30% more creative solutions than majority alone. Real-world applications of combined processes appear in organizational change, where minority innovators (e.g., 10-15% of team members advocating alternatives) interact with stability to refine policies, reducing errors by fostering without derailing cohesion. Longitudinal studies indicate that initial minority influence on subgroups (conversion rates of 8-12%) cascades to shifts over repeated interactions, as converted members bridge informational gaps. However, outcomes depend on contextual factors like task interdependence; in low-interdependence settings, combined influence favors status quo reinforcement, while high interdependence amplifies minority-driven adaptation. These processes underscore causal mechanisms where minority consistency mitigates biases, promoting resilient group judgments grounded in evidence over mere numerical dominance.

Criticisms and Controversies

Methodological Limitations

Research on minority influence predominantly relies on experiments involving artificial tasks, such as color judgments, which fail to capture the dynamic, multifaceted interactions characteristic of real-world processes. These controlled settings often overlook competitive and long-term attitude shifts, prioritizing short-term cognitive responses over observable behavioral transformations. For instance, Moscovici's seminal 1969 study deceived participants by framing the task as a vision test while manipulating group influence, raising ethical concerns about and the artificiality of perceptual stimuli that do not mirror substantive attitudinal debates. Sample characteristics further constrain generalizability, with many studies, including Moscovici's, utilizing exclusively female undergraduate participants, potentially confounding findings with gender-specific conformity patterns or student demographics unrepresentative of broader populations. Group sizes in experiments are typically small—often just two minority members against four —questioning whether they adequately simulate true minority-majority asymmetries encountered in societal contexts. Longitudinal designs remain scarce due to logistical demands, limiting evidence on delayed or latent influence effects that underpin genuine . Methodological emphasis on variables like behavioral consistency may attribute influence to isolated traits rather than emergent group processes, as individual personalities could drive outcomes more than purported minority strategies. Discrepancies between persuasion paradigms (yielding private acceptance) and group studies (often public compliance) highlight inconsistencies, where influence is inferred from self-reports or indirect indicators rather than verified causal pathways. These constraints suggest that while lab findings illuminate basic mechanisms, they underrepresent motivational factors and interactive contingencies essential for causal realism in influence dynamics.

Positive and Negative Outcomes

Minority influence can produce positive outcomes by stimulating and enhancing in groups. Experimental studies have shown that exposure to consistent minority prompts majority members to engage in more systematic information processing, leading to greater originality in idea generation and improved detection of correct solutions. For instance, Nemeth and Kwan (1987) found that participants in groups with minority dissent outperformed those in unanimous conditions on tasks requiring innovative associations and identification. This effect persists even when the minority's position is factually incorrect, as the dissent disrupts consensus-seeking tendencies and fosters broader cognitive exploration, ultimately yielding higher-quality decisions and innovations. Such benefits extend to organizational contexts, where minority dissent correlates with increased adaptability and reduced , enabling groups to avoid flawed uniform judgments. Nemeth (2003) highlighted these "hidden" advantages, noting that dissent encourages epistemic motivation—active searching for truth over mere agreement—resulting in more robust outcomes across diverse tasks. Conversely, minority influence carries negative outcomes, including heightened interpersonal conflict and erosion of group cohesion. Persistent often provokes majority rejection or marginalization of the minority, incurring social costs such as strained relationships and reduced trust. In scenarios, rigid minority positions risk perceptions of dogmatism, potentially delaying consensus and amplifying polarization without yielding influence. Moreover, successful influence by a misguided minority—though empirically rarer than majority sway—can propagate erroneous beliefs, leading to suboptimal or harmful collective actions, as seen in historical cases where fringe views gained traction amid informational asymmetries. These drawbacks underscore the contextual risks, where benefits hinge on the minority's validity and flexibility, but failures reinforce status quo rigidity at the expense of relational harmony.

Recent Developments and Future Directions

Advances in Social Change Research

Recent research has reframed minority influence from a primarily cognitive processing model to one emphasizing contextual and gradual emergence of effects through ongoing group dialogue, highlighting minorities' pivotal role in driving progress such as and LGBTQ+ advocacy. This shift, articulated by Celik and Kende in 2025, underscores that influence manifests over extended periods rather than immediate , influenced by relational and motivational factors within specific socio-historical settings. Empirical advances incorporate longitudinal designs to track minority-driven conversions, revealing that successful minorities foster by creating normative shifts from private acceptance to public adherence, often via interactive reciprocity with majorities. Prislin's 2022 agenda proposes focusing on time-dependent processes, where minorities' consistent generates conflict leading to validation-seeking or control-oriented outcomes, supported by studies like Prislin et al. (2011) demonstrating bidirectional persuasion in group settings. Integration with tipping point models represents a key development, with laboratory experiments showing that committed minorities reaching approximately 25% of a group can trigger cascades of norm change, as evidenced in Centola's 2018 simulations and subsequent validations. Centola et al.'s 2021 PNAS study confirmed threshold effects in controlled settings, where minority actions below the tipping threshold fail, but surpassing it—often through perceived ingroup status—accelerates widespread adoption, applicable to behaviors like sustainable practices. These advances extend to real-world domains, such as climate mitigation, where pro-environmental minorities facilitate spontaneous change by navigating ingroup perceptions and avoiding outgroup dismissal, per reviews optimistic about tipping dynamics. Future directions advocate interdisciplinary methods, including agent-based simulations and field studies, to dissect how minority flexibility alongside consistency overcomes resistance and embeds innovations into societal norms.

Applications to Contemporary Issues

Minority influence theory has been applied to environmental , particularly in promoting behaviors. Research indicates that consistent, systematic advocacy by small groups can shift majority attitudes toward pro-environmental actions, such as reducing carbon footprints, by fostering validation and indirect influence through social networks. For instance, policymakers can accelerate this by amplifying minority voices, as seen in campaigns where initial skeptics or low-engagement majorities gradually adopt sustainable practices after exposure to persistent minority arguments. This dynamic is evident in degrowth-oriented conflicts, where minority proponents of reduced consumption challenge dominant economic norms, leading to broader debates on despite initial resistance. In political contexts, minority influence explains the emergence of populist movements, where small, resolute factions leverage processes to challenge prevailing liberal democratic norms and gain majority support. Studies highlight how such minorities, often framing themselves as representatives of "the pure people" against "corrupt elites," employ consistent messaging to convert latent dissenters, contributing to electoral shifts like those observed in various European and U.S. contexts since the . This process underscores both the rise—through innovative behavioral styles—and potential fall of , as internal inconsistencies or majority counter-mobilization erode gains. However, applications here reveal limitations, as populist minorities may rely more on normative appeals than deep cognitive conversion, differing from classic experimental paradigms. Social media platforms exemplify minority influence in online movements, where algorithmic amplification and filter bubbles enhance the reach of cohesive minority opinions, potentially increasing polarization or norm adoption. Recent analyses show that clustered minority views on issues like can drive green lifestyle changes among lurkers and posters by mimicking real-world consistency cues, though exposure to opposing majorities may reinforce entrenchment rather than conversion. In , influencers acting as minority sources promote behaviors like eco-friendly consumption, with empirical models integrating minority influence theory and social learning to predict follower uptake. These digital applications highlight risks, such as vocal minorities dominating disproportionate to their size, as in political chambers since the mid-2010s.

References

  1. https://dictionary.apa.org/minority-influence
  2. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-14271-001
  3. https://www.simplypsychology.org/minority-influence.html
  4. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786541
  5. https://irle.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Minority-Influence-Theory.pdf
  6. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-33402-001
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9262047/
  8. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-20351-007
  9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/17796328_Influence_of_a_Consistent_Minority_on_the_Responses_of_a_Majority_in_a_Color_Perception_Task
  10. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00377.x
  11. https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/minority-influence-consistency-and-commitment
  12. https://dornsife.usc.edu/wendy-wood/wp-content/uploads/sites/183/2023/10/Wood.Lundgren.Ouellette.Busceme.Blackstone.1994_Minority_influence_a_meta-analytics.pdf
  13. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-25237-001
  14. https://www.savemyexams.com/a-level/psychology/aqa/17/revision-notes/1-social-influence/1-4-minority-influence/1-4-1-minority-influence-including-commitment-consistency/
  15. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1975-09425-001
  16. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1974-32232-004
  17. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1976-07153-001
  18. https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/minority-influence-flexibility
  19. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28375/chapter/215279014
  20. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911654/pdf
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264360890_Minority_Influence
  22. https://psychologyrocks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/latanewolf1981majorityminority.pdf
  23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2420040104
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463370109385635
  25. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-08068-009
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103119302367
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2420240605
  28. https://www.earlyyears.tv/minority-influence/
  29. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911654/full
  30. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510802341157
  31. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mcnair/vol15/iss1/7/
  32. https://www.psychologistworld.com/influence/minority-influence
  33. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-254
  34. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33721580/
  35. https://rips-irsp.com/articles/10.5334/irsp.41
  36. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/Jury-Decision-Making.pdf
  37. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6320&context=etd
  38. https://www.mun.ca/psychology/media/production/memorial/academic/faculty-of-science/psychology/media-library/research/brl/Lively_LRAPub_2017.pdf
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002210310300101X
  40. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=P0dxdVQAAAAJ&hl=en
  41. https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2195678/26418_120456.pdf
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103106001016
  43. https://eclass.uowm.gr/modules/document/file.php/NURED262/%25CE%25A0%25CE%25A1%25CE%25A9%25CE%25A4%25CE%259F%25CE%25A4%25CE%25A5%25CE%25A0%25CE%2591%2520%25CE%2591%25CE%25A1%25CE%2598%25CE%25A1%25CE%2591/Moscovici%2520et%2520al%2520influence%2520of%2520a%2520consistent%2520minority%25201969%2520S.pdf
  44. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1984-14975-001
  45. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781035309672/chapter8.xml
  46. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-14651-005
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229860045_Minority_Influence_Divergent_Thinking_and_Detection_of_Correct_Solutions
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272767630_Better_than_Individuals_The_Potential_Benefits_of_Dissent_and_Diversity_for_Group_Creativity
  49. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-88061-003
  50. https://academic.oup.com/book/27143/chapter/196534880
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5368259/
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871187116301031
  53. https://quizlet.com/gb/190163253/minority-influence-including-reference-to-consistency-commitment-and-flexibility-flash-cards/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103114001802
  55. https://oro.open.ac.uk/63498/1/27775926.pdf
  56. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15534510.2025.2565038
  57. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/damon-centola-tipping-point-large-scale-social-change
  58. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014893118
  59. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21000154
  60. https://research.rug.nl/files/166326100/Bolderdijk_Jans_2021_.pdf
  61. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.899933/full
  62. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-22020-016
  63. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003057680-20/social-psychological-contributions-study-populism-william-crano-amber-gaffney
  64. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/08944393211070527
  65. https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/msudev/v11y2019i1p33-42n6.html
  66. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pchj.70051
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.