Social influence in groups.

Social influence in groups was a major focus of the emerging field of social psychology at the turn of the 20th century. This focus was evident in early interest in such phenomena as sympathy, imitation, suggestion, the crowd, and the group mind. It also was reflected in the first experimental problem in social psychology: “What change in an individual’s normal solitary performance occurs when other people are present? ” (Allport, 1954, p. 46). Historical analyses of social psychology are unanimous in according group influence a central role in the development of the field (Jones, 1985; Prislin & Crano, 2012; Ross, Lepper, & Ward, 2010). Social influence in groups is a multifaceted phenomenon, which can vary on several dimensions. These dimensions include, among others, the relative size and status of the source and target of influence, the extent to which the source and target interact with one another, the degree to which the source and target seek to arrive at a joint decision, and the nature of the influence exerted (e.g., overt behavioral change, covert opinion change). It therefore is not surprising that the literature on social influence in groups is both large and diverse, encompassing such phenomena as leadership (Hogg, 2007a; Chapter 3, this volume), negotiation (Chapter 6, this volume), group creativity (Chapter 2, this volume), group polarization (Brauer & Judd, 1996), groupthink (Baron, 2005), social facilitation and loafing (Williams, Harkins, & Karau, 2003), majority and minority influence (Levine & Prislin, 2013), and group decision making (Tindale, Talbot, & Martinez, 2013). This chapter discusses majority and minority influence and group decision making, focusing primarily on cases in which the distribution of group members’ initial positions is bimodal and asymmetrical, such that a numerical majority holds one position and a numerical minority holds another. Our definitions of majority and minority are consistent with those used by most social influence researchers. Three implicit features of the definition should be pointed out, however. First, researchers typically assume that minorities invariably promote change (or innovation) in otherwise-conservative groups, thereby portraying minorities in a heroic light. As Levine and Kaarbo (2001) argued, however, this is not always the case. In addition to promoting change to a position that is new for the group (progressive influence), a minority also can promote change to a position that the group previously held (reactionary influence). Moreover, a minority can block change, either to a position that is new for the group (conservative influence) or to one that the group previously held (modernist influence). Second, it generally is assumed that the majority position reflects the dominant viewpoint of people outside the group (i.e., the Zeitgeist). This is often, but not always, the case (cf. Maass, Clark, & Haberkorn, 1982; Paicheler, 1976). Finally, although a faction’s power and status often are correlated positively (and strongly) with its relative size, there are important exceptions. Examples include Whites in South Africa during apartheid and the leaders of many groups. As President Abraham Lincoln is reported to have told his advisors, “Gentlemen, the vote is eleven to one, and the one has it” (Hermann & Hermann, 1989, p. 365).