Search

This study examines the factors influencing the effectiveness of influencer activism in shaping self-branding and advocating for social issues through a social influence lens, focusing on influencer type (human vs. artificial intelligence [AI]) and race (Black vs. White). Two experiments examined the interplay between influencers' social identity and influencer–issue congruence: one with human-centric racial issues (Study 1) and another for AI-involved racial issues (Study 2). Results indicated that in-group (human) and minority (Black) influencers received more positive evaluations compared to out-group (AI) and majority (White) influencers, which further enhanced evaluations of the issue. Additionally, the minority influence (Black over White) effect was more pronounced for out-group AI influencers than for in-group human influencers, particularly in the context of human-centric issues. Furthermore, the in-group preferences could be mitigated by increasing the issue relevancy to out-group sources. This study sheds light on the complex interplay between influencer type, race, and issue type, offering insights into optimizing influencer and cause selection for effective influencer activism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In group decision-making, the behavior of each member is sensitive to the social influence of other majority members. Research on majority influence has shown that multiple non-human agents with anthropomorphic cues can exert normative pressure on a lone human decision-maker. However, how individuals perceive and respond to minority influence exerted by a lone machine is rarely discussed. Hence, a between-subjects experiment was conducted to examine how different minority identity (human vs artificial intelligence [AI]) and specialization (specialist vs generalist) cues influence individuals' perceptions and behavior in response to moral dilemmas in a joint human–AI group. The results confirmed the significant role of specialization cues in predicting in-group identification, source credibility, and conversion behavior. In addition, the participants perceived the human minority as more credible than the AI minority, which prompted conversion behavior when the minority was labeled as a specialist rather than as a generalist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An emerging line of research has been exploring how changes in social norms can lay the ground for shifts toward sustainability. This pre-registered study investigated the influence of communicating static and dynamic norms (2 Static x 2 Dynamic, between-subjects design) on respondents' beliefs, intentions, information-seeking behavior, and policy support regarding plant-based food. Here, static norms referred to a minority of consumers who believed that plant-based food has a crucial role in sustainability transitions. Dynamic norms referred to how the number of people endorsing this belief had been increasing. The findings (N = 492) revealed that communicating the dynamic aspect of the minority belief increased participants' endorsement of that same belief. Moreover, exposure to dynamic norms (alone or with static norms) had a small positive effect on policy support. These findings add to the growing body of knowledge on dynamic-norm communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During collaborative small group problem-solving, a group member with a minority perspective has a notable influence on the majority's perspective. However, the type of interactions with such a member could influence a stalemate, and the relationships between internal and task conflicts and the convergence process remain unclear. This study comprised two experiments focusing on the influence of minorities who act as "newcomers" among 231 university psychology majors. Using multiple conversational agents as the experimental tools, Experiment 1 revealed that a newcomer who presents a new perspective promotes the majority's perspective change, compared to when such a member has been in the group from the beginning. Experiment 2 demonstrated that such an effect occurs when most of the internal conflict and the task phase facilitated the newcomers' influence. The findings indicated that the minority member advantage increases when they are a newcomer; thus, they have a stronger influence on the perspective-taking process. The same effect occurs when the newcomer intervenes in majority task conflicts and internal cognitive loads. Thus, this study provides new implications for research on minority influence in laboratory experiments using virtual agents for small-group studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When is a token female's voice incorporated into the actions of a traditionally male-dominated team, and to what ends? Drawing from the tokenism, gender stereotypes, and minority influence literatures, we advance a model that specifies the conditions that facilitate token female voice enactment and when enacting the female's voice enhances team performance. Using a sample of active-duty military men and women, we employed live observation techniques to study voice enactment in all-male teams versus female-token teams (i.e., teams with a token female member) throughout a series of complex and physically demanding tasks. Our findings revealed that (a) token female voice enactment was higher when team leaders possessed more favorable beliefs about women's capabilities in the military, and (b) token female voice enactment enhanced team performance in more complex tasks but harmed team performance in less complex tasks. Additionally, our supplementary analyses revealed that female-token teams were more reflective before engaging in action relative to all-male teams, as the latter tended to engage in agentic, "action-first" strategies. Theoretical and practical implications for facilitating female voice enactment in traditionally male-dominated contexts are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minority influence appeared in social psychology in the 1960's. This theoretical paper aims to present and analyze Serge Moscovici's pioneering studies and their present development. From Moscovici's explanation of the genetic model of social influence, it points out the diagnostic of the lack of comprehensiveness of the functionalist model to explain the conflict of ideas, the conversion and the innovation by minorities' norms and ideas. This paper explains these concepts and exhibits the behavioral consistency and the informational conflict in the conceptual and the operational level. The authors detail the foundational studies of the blue-green paradigm in order to show theoretical and methodological constructs and the incongruence between both. They explore the relationship with social identity theory in the divergent perspectives of the conversion theory and the self-categorization theory. They present new concepts of minorities: the victimized, the perpetrators and those who seek tolerance. Finally, the authors point out the developments already made and those still needed, based on reviews and analysis of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consumers engage in word‐of‐mouth pervasively, and strategies such as different endorsement types are commonly used to facilitate word‐of‐mouth diffusion. Prior work on endorsement has highlighted the advantage of the majority (e.g., everyone likes it) in persuasion so that companies usually use it to shape consumers' preference, but is the majority endorsement more effective than the minority endorsement (e.g., I personally like it)? This research demonstrates that the persuasiveness of majority or minority endorsement depends on the stages of the consumer decision journey. Minority endorsement can be more influential than majority endorsement in the early stage of the consumer decision journey. This paper theorizes and demonstrates that this effect occurs because minority endorsement emphasizes differentiation from the group and does not have any conformity pressure, which could satisfy consumers' pronounced need for decision autonomy in the early stage. In contrast, majority endorsement is more effective in the late stage because consumers regard it as social proof and can better meet consumers' salient need for decision control. These findings identify psychological needs in the consumer decision journey, contribute to the research on social influence, and provide managerial insights for marketers on when and how to adopt different strategies to influence consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If today the anthropogenic origin of climate change gathers almost total scientific consensus, human pro-environmental action is not changing with sufficient impact to keep global warming within the 1.5° limit. Environmental psychology has traditionally focused on the underlying barriers towards more pro-environmental behaviours. Emotions--like fear or anger--may act as such barriers especially in case of radical change (e.g., degrowth). While minority influence has been extensively applied to understand societal change, it has rarely been applied to understand the emotional responses that may hinder counter-normative pro-environmental messages. However, past literature on emotions shows that, in challenging situations--the likes of radical minority conflict--people will tend to use their emotional reaction to maintain societal status quo. Two studies investigated how participants emotionally react towards a counter-normative pro-environmental minority message (advocating degrowth). A qualitative (thematic analyses) and a quantitative (emotional self-report paradigm) studies showed that participants report emotions that allow them to realign themselves with the cultural backdrop of the social dominant paradigm (growth), thus resisting change. Specifically, although all participants tend to demonstrate higher proportions of control-oriented emotions, men do so more. These effects, as well as questions of cultural and ideological dominance, are discussed considering barriers towards pro-environmentalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The obstacles to farmers' conversion to organic farming were examined from a theoretical standpoint derived from social psychology and sociology. Attitudes and social norms are key social and psychological concepts that have often been considered as independent determinants of human behavior. However, questions about the interplay between the two are somewhat of a blind spot in the social sciences, especially in social psychology. By adopting an interdisciplinary theoretical approach, we suggest that where a major change in norms is involved such as that of conversion to organic farming, behaviors are shaped by a discrepancy between personal attitudes and the perceived group norm, i.e., perception of the attitudes of other group members. This proposal was tested and supported by qualitative semi-directed enquiries involving sixteen farmers in the French region "Auvergne Rhône-Alpes". The dynamic interaction was shown to play an important role when it comes to explaining individual intentions to change one's mode of farming. These findings, applied to the field of agriculture, are discussed from the standpoint of the influence that a robust and active minority might play in initiating social changes in the farming world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Context Comparison Model (CCM) provides a promising avenue to guide persuasive communication development by highlighting the features of the communication context that require consideration, including source, target, and task variables. The model was tested in a study of global climate change. American participants read a text outlining scientific evidence for global climate change and a policy proposal to mitigate future climate change. Prior to reading the text, participants' completed measures of their political affiliation (Republican, Democrats, Independent or Other) to render their group memberships salient. They were randomly assigned to one of four source conditions: (a) ingroup minority; (b) ingroup majority; (c) outgroup minority; or (d) outgroup minority. Participants completed pre- and post-measures of attitudes and the plausibility of climate change. Pretest scores revealed that global climate change attitudes were held less strongly by Republicans than Democrats. In line with expectations, participants' subjective attitudes were more influenced by ingroup sources, and larger persuasive effects were obtained for ingroup minorities. For the plausibility of climate change, participants were more persuaded by an outgroup source, and larger effects were evident for outgroup majorities. Results were precisely predicted by the CCM. Their implications for science communication were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Context Comparison Model (CCM) provides a promising avenue to guide persuasive communication development by highlighting the features of the communication context that require consideration, including source, target, and task variables. The model was tested in a study of global climate change. American participants read a text outlining scientific evidence for global climate change and a policy proposal to mitigate future climate change. Prior to reading the text, participants’ completed measures of their political affiliation (Republican, Democrats, Independent or Other) to render their group memberships salient. They were randomly assigned to one of four source conditions: (a) ingroup minority; (b) ingroup majority; (c) outgroup minority; or (d) outgroup minority. Participants completed pre- and post-measures of attitudes and the plausibility of climate change. Pretest scores revealed that global climate change attitudes were held less strongly by Republicans than Democrats. In line with expectations, participants’ subjective attitudes were more influenced by ingroup sources, and larger persuasive effects were obtained for ingroup minorities. For the plausibility of climate change, participants were more persuaded by an outgroup source, and larger effects were evident for outgroup majorities. Results were precisely predicted by the CCM. Their implications for science communication were discussed.

If today the anthropogenic origin of climate change gathers almost total scientific consensus, human pro-environmental action is not changing with sufficient impact to keep global warming within the 1.5° limit. Environmental psychology has traditionally focused on the underlying barriers towards more pro-environmental behaviours. Emotions-like fear or anger-may act as such barriers especially in case of radical change (e.g., degrowth). While minority influence has been extensively applied to understand societal change, it has rarely been applied to understand the emotional responses that may hinder counter-normative pro-environmental messages. However, past literature on emotions shows that, in challenging situations-the likes of radical minority conflict-people will tend to use their emotional reaction to maintain societal status quo. Two studies investigated how participants emotionally react towards a counter-normative pro-environmental minority message (advocating degrowth). A qualitative (thematic analyses) and a quantitative (emotional self-report paradigm) studies showed that participants report emotions that allow them to realign themselves with the cultural backdrop of the social dominant paradigm (growth), thus resisting change. Specifically, although all participants tend to demonstrate higher proportions of control-oriented emotions, men do so more. These effects, as well as questions of cultural and ideological dominance, are discussed considering barriers towards pro-environmentalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minority influence research was sparked by Moscovici’s observation about the power of active minorities to instigate social change. This idea invigorated research on social influence, which is evident in a subsequent outburst of studies on minority influence up to the 1990s, followed by a decrease and stabilization in the 2000s and 2010s. In spite of a remarkable scientific output, research on minority influence has not addressed its original question about social change. Rather, it has focused dominantly on the cognitive processes and attitudinal change in response to a minority advocacy or minority mere presence, and, to a lesser degree, to the role of minority influence in decision-making and task groups. To orient research toward social change, a research agenda is presented, along with a few illustrative studies. The proposed agenda focuses on time, interactive (minority ↔ majority), and motivated influence as critical explanatory variables to address in the next phase of research on minority influence in the pursuit of social change.

If today the anthropogenic origin of climate change gathers almost total scientific consensus, human pro-environmental action is not changing with sufficient impact to keep global warming within the 1.5° limit. Environmental psychology has traditionally focused on the underlying barriers towards more pro-environmental behaviours. Emotions—like fear or anger—may act as such barriers especially in case of radical change (e.g., degrowth). While minority influence has been extensively applied to understand societal change, it has rarely been applied to understand the emotional responses that may hinder counter-normative pro-environmental messages. However, past literature on emotions shows that, in challenging situations—the likes of radical minority conflict—people will tend to use their emotional reaction to maintain societal status quo. Two studies investigated how participants emotionally react towards a counter-normative pro-environmental minority message (advocating degrowth). A qualitative (thematic analyses) and a quantitative (emotional self-report paradigm) studies showed that participants report emotions that allow them to realign themselves with the cultural backdrop of the social dominant paradigm (growth), thus resisting change. Specifically, although all participants tend to demonstrate higher proportions of control-oriented emotions, men do so more. These effects, as well as questions of cultural and ideological dominance, are discussed considering barriers towards pro-environmentalism.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Boundary spanners live a precarious social life. They need to stand out to receive ideas from different groups and fit into some groups enough to influence their peers. We investigated how boundary spanners make linguistic choices to manage the tension of distinctiveness and belonging. We identified boundary spanners based on their betweenness centrality in a large review network (23,851 users and 118,545 reviews). We found that, compared to non-boundary spanners, boundary spanners used less bonding language to set themselves apart, but used more utility language to enhance social value. Boundary spanners' use of bonding language varied with their popularity in social networks. More (vs. less) popular boundary spanners showed a stronger tendency to avoid we-words but not positive emotional words. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While numerous studies have demonstrated the difficulty minority opinion holders face when trying to persuade a majority, the present research investigated the conditions under which minority members might second-guess themselves and become advocates for the majority's position even when they have the best information. In a laboratory experiment, we examined whether the structure of monetary incentives (fixed amount vs. performance-based) and group decision-making procedure (collective decisions vs. group discussion then individual decisions) might mitigate second-guessing by minority members when they initially favor the objectively best choice. Our results indicated that compared with fixed-amount incentives, performance-based incentives increased overall information sharing in collective decision-making groups but not in individual decision-making groups. Second-guessing by minority members was most likely to occur in groups that received performance-based incentives and made decisions individually. As a result of second-guessing, these groups also made poorer decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We experimentally examine the effects of trait professional skepticism on fraud brainstorming performance. We find that groups with a minority, but not a majority, of high trait skeptics develop more fraud ideas than control groups with no high trait skeptics. Mediation analyses indicate that minority high trait skeptic groups also assess higher fraud risk, in part because they consider more fraud ideas. Low trait skeptics who brainstorm in groups with a minority of high trait skeptics tend to view the minority high trait skeptic as the best member of the group because of that member's unique insights. Their individual, post-brainstorming fraud risk assessments remain high, indicating conversion to the minority (skeptical) viewpoint. Our study contributes to the brainstorming literature by highlighting the importance of group composition. It suggests that firms can promote skeptical team judgments by leveraging individuals' high trait skepticism in thoughtfully composed interacting groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Societies differ in susceptibility to social influence and in the social network structure through which individuals influence each other. What implications might these cultural differences have for changes in cultural norms over time? Using parameters informed by empirical evidence, we computationally modeled these cross-cultural differences to predict two forms of cultural change: consolidation of opinion majorities into stronger majorities, and the spread of initially unpopular beliefs. Results obtained from more than 300,000 computer simulations showed that in populations characterized by greater susceptibility to social influence, there was more rapid consolidation of majority opinion and also more successful spread of initially unpopular beliefs. Initially unpopular beliefs also spread more readily in populations characterized by less densely connected social networks. These computational outputs highlight the value of computational modeling methods as a means to specify hypotheses about specific ways in which cross-cultural differences may have long-term consequences for cultural stability and cultural change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research focuses on people’s perceptions and explanations of majority and minority influence, and on the socio-cognitive processes that underlie them. Two experimental studies (Ns = 89, 139) examined the effects of source status (majority vs. minority) and message quality (strong vs. weak arguments) on perceptions of influence on self and others, explanations for this influence and message elaboration. An estimation of potential (and actual) influence on self and other recipients was examined and an expected bias in perception was evident, others were thought to be influenced more than the self (i.e. a third-person perception). These perceptions depended on the greater message elaboration instigated by a minority (vs. majority) source. The reasons people offer about the potential (or actual) influence were also examined – in particular, people’s thoughts about the influential message and source’s status (i.e. the information that they receive a message by a majority or a minority influence). Results showed that thinking as an explanation of influence is more important for a majority (vs. a minority) message and this does not depend on actual cognitive elaboration but rather on self-serving processes. Overall, the results show that thinking as an underlying process of, or as an account for, influence is differentially connected with majority and minority source. These findings contribute to our understanding of perceptions and explanations of social influence and of their underlying socio-cognitive processes.

Pérez and Mugny (1987) extended the scope of minority influence research in a classic study that explicitly drew a distinction between in-group and out-group minority influence sources and their effects on majority acceptance. Their study also refocused the field from a social influence, perception-oriented view to a more dynamic persuasion, attitude-centric orientation. This paper reflects upon the generative nature of the original research, and that which followed, with a reflection on its impact on our own theorizing and research. The current work is focused on factors that affect the fundamental processes of minority influence, as viewed from the perspective of the leniency contract. Important factors considered in the model include (a) the in-group or out-group nature of the influence source, (b) the subjective or objective features of the judgment task, (c) the role of conflict with, and accommodation to the minority, (d) the genesis and potential outcome of indirect change effects on focal attitudes in response to persuasive minority communications and (e) the importance and utility of considering the structural interconnections among attitudes, and their implications for focal attitude change. Research by Mugny and his colleagues stimulated these and other important features of contemporary scholarship on minority influence. Progress and understanding of the intriguing minority-induced change process, a clear departure from the classic majority-based persuasion model, owes a great debt to Gabriel Mugny and his team of talented collaborators.

Extending Gabriel Mugny’s work on minority influence, this paper integrates models of minority influence with categorization and social identification processes. By doing so, we aim to understand how members of a national majority become willing to actively challenge political authority by showing solidarity with the refugee minority. In an experimental study (N = 112, Swiss nationals), participants read a minority position (pro-welcoming appeal), followed by measures of support for particular policies in favor of refugees in Switzerland. A 2 × 2 + control design was used, in which the intergroup context was organised as a function of categorical differentiation of the source of minority influence (Swiss national vs. refugee) and normative differentiation of the pro-welcoming message (assimilation vs. multicultural norms of integration). Results showed a cross-categorization effect whereby categorical and normative differentiation interacted to predict solidarity: Conditions in which the Swiss source mobilized multicultural arguments and the refugee source mobilized assimilationist ones were most effective. Furthermore, influence was stronger for higher national identifiers than for lower identifiers. Our findings underline the importance of integrating dynamics of intergroup communication in minority influence studies.

This Editorial introduces the Special Collection “Conflicts in social influence: A Festschrift in honour of Gabriel Mugny”, which celebrates Gabriel Mugny’s pioneer role in developing a social psychological understanding of the structuring role of conflict. The article outlines Gabriel Mugny's contribution to social psychology in general, and to social development and minority influence in particular. It also presents the articles included in the Special Collection.

Women have traditionally been underrepresented on boards of companies, but after some social and legal pressure their presence has been increased during recent years. This paper examines the relation of the presence of female directors both at board meetings and at audit and remuneration committees, with CEO pay and the shareholders' consultative vote on managerial remuneration plans (“say on pay”). Using a large sample of Spanish firms listed between 2011 and 2015, our study reveals that firms with female representation on their remuneration committee, display lower levels of CEO pay and CEO pay growth. We also obtain evidence that this effect is attributable to the proprietary female directors. Additionally, from the “say on pay” perspective, female membership of the remuneration committee is associated with a lower number of votes in terms of director remuneration reports and related policies. Overall, our results indicate that female directors on the remuneration committee contribute to a moderation of executive remuneration growth and are consequently perceived by shareholders as valuable resources in the design of executive remuneration plans. This confirms the influence of the minority group, females, in the sustainable progress of these companies. Our results support the presence of female directors not only as a social measure or tokenism, but also as a contribution to good governance practice.

Expressing anger can signal that someone is certain and competent, thereby increasing their social influence—but does this strategy work for everyone? After assessing gender- and race-based emotion stereotypes (Study 1), we assessed the effect of expressing anger on social influence during group decision making as a function of gender (Studies 2–3) and race (Study 3). Participants took part in a computerized mock jury decision-making task, during which they read scripted comments ostensibly from other jurors. A "holdout" juror always disagreed with the participant and four other confederate group members. We predicted that the contextual factor of who expressed emotion would trump what was expressed in determining whether anger is a useful persuasion strategy. People perceived all holdouts expressing anger as more emotional than holdouts who expressed identical arguments without anger. Yet holdouts who expressed anger (versus no anger) were less effective and influential when they were female (but not male, Study 2) or Black (but not White, Study 3)—despite having expressed identical arguments and anger. Although anger expression made participants perceive the holdouts as more emotional regardless of race and gender, being perceived as more emotional was selectively used to discredit women and African Americans. These diverging consequences of anger expression have implications for societally important group decisions, including life-and-death decisions made by juries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Women have traditionally been underrepresented on boards of companies, but after some social and legal pressure their presence has been increased during recent years. This paper examines the relation of the presence of female directors both at board meetings and at audit and remuneration committees, with CEO pay and the shareholders' consultative vote on managerial remuneration plans (“say on pay”). Using a large sample of Spanish firms listed between 2011 and 2015, our study reveals that firms with female representation on their remuneration committee, display lower levels of CEO pay and CEO pay growth. We also obtain evidence that this effect is attributable to the proprietary female directors. Additionally, from the “say on pay” perspective, female membership of the remuneration committee is associated with a lower number of votes in terms of director remuneration reports and related policies. Overall, our results indicate that female directors on the remuneration committee contribute to a moderation of executive remuneration growth and are consequently perceived by shareholders as valuable resources in the design of executive remuneration plans. This confirms the influence of the minority group, females, in the sustainable progress of these companies. Our results support the presence of female directors not only as a social measure or tokenism, but also as a contribution to good governance practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines media representations of statements made by the 2012 student movement in Hungary. We analyzed a total of 138 articles from two main Hungarian online journals. We found that both outlets focused strictly on the movement's specific claims about educational policy but neglected to report on the broader political-ideological claims that it made. The emphasized claims reflected the specific political agenda of each outlet, with both newspapers also framing events according to the outlook of Hungary's dominant political establishment (Fidesz). We then traced the dialogue between the Hungarian government and the student movement over time. We found that the movement was the much more active partner in this dialogue. We coded the co-occurrences of psycholinguistic markers, testing perspectivetaking as a requirement for dialogue. The results indicated that the dialogue was a pretense of negotiation from the government and ended with insignificant adjustments to its original plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the theoretical frameworks of information-sharing in groups and the linear discrepancy model, this study highlights the importance of communicating shared information for a divergent member to influence a group. Participants received information concerning whether “under God” should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. After stating individual opinions, they discussed the issue in small groups and came to a group decision on a continuous, ordered scale. Low divergent members, who had opinions closer to the average of other group members, had more influence than high divergent members. Group members with high divergence were more confident and talked more than others. However, there was no relationship between the amount divergent members talked or their confidence level and their amount of influence. Highly divergent group members who mentioned more shared information were more influential and came across as more knowledgeable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informed by Mugny’s theorization on minority influence (Mugny, 1982; Mugny & Perez, 1991; Papastamou & Mugny, 1983), this paper discusses the ideological profile of the target of influence of a minority that does not challenge the system (such as extreme right-wing minorities), but confronts those held responsible for its disintegration. It is argued and empirically verified in a study with Greek participants (N = 333) that, in times of crisis and instability of the social order, people who believe in the core values of the system and who are frustrated by its disintegration support more extreme right-wing beliefs and violent practices than those who challenge the system or who are supporting it. The results highlight the ideological heterogeneity of the population to whom minority influence is addressed, which are discussed in the context of the rise of extreme right-wing beliefs in Greece and in Europe.

Disagreement between numerically larger (majority) and smaller (minority) factions in groups is both common and consequential. For these reasons, there is a long tradition of social psychological interest in the causes and consequences of such disagreement. Early work focused on minority members’ movement toward the majority (majority influence) and majority members’ (negative) perceptions and evaluations of those who refused to move. Later work focused on similarities and differences between majority influence and its mirror opposite, minority influence, and on majority members’ (sometimes relatively positive) perceptions and evaluations of minority members. This paper summarizes current knowledge on these topics and suggests promising avenues for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]