In-group minorities out-persuade in-group majorities on objective but undecided judgment tasks

Evidence

However, when the identical judgment task was thought to allow for an objective conclusion (i.e., one involving a consensually agreed upon “correct” answer), the in-group minority was more influential than the in-group majority. This result is intriguing as it points to a specific context in which in-group minorities may, in fact, enjoy a persuasive advantage. When the task involves an objective judgment on which there is not a strong established belief or preference, the minority may provoke greater message acceptance. With enhanced attention to its message and no established or vested position on the part of the audience, the minority’s message may prove even more influential than that of the majority. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1395

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s existing thread: minority influence succeeding precisely when the audience has no vested position complicates any simple majority-conformity model of how group prejudice spreads.
• SEED: A possible angle: when do dissenting minorities break through versus get dismissed demands pinpointing the task’s ‘objective with no established belief’ condition — relevant to how new anti-prejudice norms might actually take hold.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1395