Minority ideas inside a group can shape members’ thoughts even when uncommon

Evidence

Our presentation draws on a number of recent theoretical orientations in the field of social psychology. The most central of these in our discussion is social identity theory and its extension, self-categorization theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Tuner, 1979; Turner, 1985). Recent writings on soĀ­ cially shared cognitions and social representations (Moscovici, 1984; ThompĀ­ son & Fine, 1999; Tindale, Meisenhelder, Dykema-Engblade, & Hogg, 2001) and dynamic social impact theory (Latane & Bourgeois, 2001) also underlie many of the points raised in this chapter. In addition, theory and research on minority influence (Nemeth, 1986), shared representations in groups, and ā€œsocial sharednessā€ more generally (Tindale & Kameda, 2000; Tindale, Smith, Thomas, Filkins, & Sheffey, 1996) are used to demonstrate how ideas in a group, regardless of how prevalent, can influence the thoughts and behavĀ­ iors of group members in both direct and indirect ways. — Leonard S. Newman and Ralph Erber (eds.), Understanding Genocide, 900

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Names the specific theoretical toolkit (SIT, self-categorization, social representations, dynamic social impact, minority influence) that any ā€˜envious outgroup’ argument must plug into.
  • QUESTION: Does minority influence cut against or support the powerful-minority scapegoating mechanism — a numerically small elite shaping majority hostility?
  • XREF: connects to: Minority influence is delayed but persists and spreads to unaddressed beliefs; In-group minorities out-persuade in-group majorities on objective but undecided judgment tasks — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 1395

Broader Connections