We have written more than once before in this book about how great it is, downright intoxicating to feel like you belong to the majority and how hard it is for those who find themselves in the minority. However, many people are well aware of this from their own experience. That is why people, as a rule, always try to belong to the majority, and not to the minority, under all circumstances. Moreover, some (and there are many of them), out of fear of being in the minority, not only change their views, principles, and beliefs, but also betray other people, including their loved ones or those who simply trusted them. In addition, quite a lot of people tend to join the majority because by doing so, they very easily end up on the winning side or even in their ranks, without putting in any effort, effort, labor, etc. Such people are always on the side of those who are clearly winning. We have mentioned this for the reason that researchers studying social influence have traditionally adhered to the point of view of ordinary consciousness on the ratio of majority and minority influence, namely: the majority is necessarily more influential than the minority. By the way, all the previously discussed studies are by Sherif (1936), Asha (1951), Schechter (1951), and others. – we just confirmed the truth of this opinion. At the same time, we also got acquainted with another point of view, which was defended by Gabriel Tarde. In particular, he argued that the minority, the elite, exerts an exceptional influence on the majority, the masses. In other words, according to Tarde, the minority is not just more influential than the majority, but that it alone has the power to influence. Tarde sees confirmation of this in the very phenomenon of social power, which belongs either to individual people – leaders, leaders, leaders, or ruling, leading groups that give dynamism to social development. A less categorical position, but still recognizing the possibility of minority influence on the majority, is taken by the modern French social psychologist Serge Moscovici (1976, 1985). He believes that the influence of a minority on the majority should be different from the reverse influence, since members of the minority need to have special characteristics and behavior in order to gain influence over the group. The first condition on which the minority’s influence depends is the nature of the majority’s attitude towards the subgroup. If the “Mensheviks” act as a single, cohesive team, then they have a better chance of gaining a preponderance in influence. After all, in this case they will give the other members of the group the impression of convinced, persistent, highly responsible people. This may arouse respect and attention among the “Bolsheviks,” which in turn may encourage the majority to join the opinion of the minority. S. Moscovici further argues that the subgroup of “Mensheviks” should demonstrate consistency, perseverance, independence, honesty, justice, etc. In short, the minority should be an example of resilience and decency. However, some researchers, and in particular Sharon Wolf (1979), believe that the persistence and intransigence of the “Mensheviks” can turn the entire group against them and lead to the isolation or even expulsion of the minority (Avermat E., 2001). Therefore, in some situations, it is better for a minority to compromise than to demonstrate inflexibility. Another difference in the influence of a minority is how agreement with the “Menshevik” position occurs. Conformism towards the position of the “Bolsheviks” is, as a rule, ostentatious, carefully emphasized, and public in nature. The influence of a minority most often affects personal, internal, internalized beliefs. Charlene Nemeth and Joel Wachtler suggested that people who are aware of the minority position and often hear about it are better prepared than the ignorant, internally prepared to accept this point of view, even if it did not initially coincide with their own, better prepared to take a fresh look at the problem. Conformist reactions to the majority opinion are often ostentatious and occur hastily (Nemeth C., Wachtler J., 1983). To test their hypothesis, Nemeth and Wachtler recruited a group of 162 students who volunteered to participate in the research and invited them to work on solving a creative problem that requires imagination. The subjects had to work in groups in which the researchers introduced their assistants. The task, which, however, served only as a distraction, was to find images of masked figures. But the real purpose of the study was to study the difference between the influence of the majority and the minority. Therefore, the work of the groups of subjects was based on the following principle: the “minority” condition consisted of two real subjects and four research assistants; in the “majority” conditions, the ratio was reversed and the assistants were in the numerical minority. Although in all cases the assistants posing as the subjects offered the same number of figures they found, the reactions of the real subjects varied depending on the situation. When a solution was proposed by the majority (assistants), the subjects (the minority) simply joined it. On the contrary, after learning the answer of the assistants who were in the minority, the real subjects, the majority, were in no hurry to agree with them and continued to work independently, trying to find new figures. Thus, the subjects really quickly and easily succumbed to the influence of the majority and practically did not perceive the pressure of the minority. Consequently, the “Mensheviks” actually need to make some special efforts to become influential for the majority. In addition, by filling out a post-experimental questionnaire, those subjects who were under the conditions of “majority influence” and who simply joined the opinion of others reported experiencing a feeling of mental discomfort, unlike subjects under the conditions of “minority influence” (Nonmet H. and Wachtler J. 1983). Not all social psychologists agree with the conclusions of S. Moscovici, C. Nemeth and J. Wachtler says that the process of minority influence differs from reverse influence, believing that both processes proceed in the same way. For example, Sharon Wolf and Bib Latane (1985) argue that the influence of both the majority and the minority is determined by three factors: the number of people, their proximity and the degree of their influence. (We have already discussed these factors in the previous chapter.). In other words, Wolfe and Latane believe that the “Mensheviks” have little influence simply because there are fewer of them. If there are many members of the minority, if they have a high status and authority, and if they do not distance themselves from the majority subgroup, then their influence will be very high. It seems that the conclusions of Wolfe and Latane do not contradict the point of view of Nemeth and Wachtler, but simply concretize it. After all, the conditions that should contribute to the growth of the minority’s influence are stipulated by Ch. Nemeth, B. Latane called it in other words. Another objection to Nemeth and Wachtler’s conclusions is contained in a meta-analysis of majority and minority influence studies conducted by Arie Kruglanski and Diana Makai. The authors of the meta-analysis argue that proponents of a differentiated understanding of the influence of the minority and the majority perceive apparent differences as real. In fact, the researchers believe, the differences are contained in the situations in which influence occurs, rather than in the qualitative characteristics of the types of influence (Kruglanski A. & Mackie D., 1990). If we go back to the study of Nemeth and Wachtler (1983), we find that under the conditions of “majority influence” the subjects were confronted with the fact that the majority (four research assistants) had already completed the task. So the minority of real subjects had no choice but to join the proposed solution. This perception of the situation could have caused the subjects to feel uncomfortable, which they reported in the questionnaires. But under the conditions of “minority influence”, the subjects did not get the impression that the task had already been completed, so they joined in its solution themselves. But if a minority had managed to convince them that there was nothing else to do, then the subjects would also have given up trying to make an independent decision. Based on this reasoning, A. Kruglyansky and D. Mackay come to the conclusion that in the study of Ch. Nemeth and J. Wachtler revealed not two different types of influence, but the same type of influence, but in different situations. To tell the truth, Kruglyansky and Makai’s arguments don’t look very convincing. After all, proponents of the differentiated influence of the minority and the majority say something else, namely: the influence of the majority leads to external conformity, while the influence of the minority leads to internal, i.e. to a real change in position. In conclusion, we note that this issue is still debatable (see, for example, Myers D., 1997, Avermat E., 2001). And this is understandable. After all, if G. Tarde and other scientists are right when they assert the dominant influence of a minority in social processes, its dominant role in social change, then knowledge of the mechanisms of minority influence on the majority turns out to be extremely important. Author: Semechkin N.I., Psychology of small groups Source: PSYERA Photo: info-war.gr