Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task Author(s): S. Moscovici, E. Lage, M.

Naffrechoux Reviewed work(s): Source: Sociometry, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1969), pp. 365-380 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786541 . Accessed: 14/12/2011 15:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociometry.

http://www.jstor.org

Influenceof a ConsistentMinorityon the Responses of a Majority in a Color PerceptionTask

S. MOSCOVICI,* E. LAGE AND M. NAFFRECHOUX Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris social Most of the studieson social influence have dealt with conformity, as pressureexercisedby majoritygroups,and have used dependency the source of influence. This study concernsinnovation, social pressureexercized by a minority, triesat the same time to prove that behavioral and is styleis a generalsource of influence. objectively An blue stimulus used whichtwo subjects (stooges) out of six call "green" in the experimental groups.When the behaviorof the minority consistent, numberof is the "green" repliesin the experimental groupsis significantly higherthan in the control group.This changein answeris not onlya verbalagreement but corresponds a changein theirperception to code, as shownby a color discrimination test. Whenthe minority's behavior not consistent, impact is its on the majority minimal.Therefore is the consistent is it behavioralstyle of minorities thatinsuresthe adoptionof theirpointof view.
THE CONFORMITY BIAS

assimilates processof influence the the to Specialisedliterature commonly processof conformity is (Allen, 1965). On the one hand, the tendency to assume that any type of influence leads to conformity, moreover and that is conformity the sole phenomenon achievedby means of influence. the On other the it hand,whenexamining individual, is alwaysassumedthathe asks himself question the "ShouldI follow groupor theminority?" in other the or wordshe is faced with the alternative conformity deviance.On the of or an contrary, individualfrequently poses the questionin exactlythe inverse manner: "WhatshouldI do so thatthemajority adoptmypointof view? will of of How can I changethe conception others?"The multiplicity such posthe tendsto contradict aforementioned sible questions assimilation. Without goinginto the detailsstatedelsewhere (Moscoviciand Faucheux,1969) we of can consider innovation a form social influence. orderto study the as In of this the and theoretically empirically form, analysis theactionof a minority the upon the majority, qualitieswhichit mustpossessin orderto make its
*Fellow (1968-1969) at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. I also wish to acknowledgethe assistance extendedto me by the James Marshall Fund. 365

366

SOCIOMETRY

This research a point of view accepted,constitutes sort of prolegomenon. proposesto show more clearlyone of these qualities and to depart from whichare linkedto conformity. on the customary emphasis attitudes
BEHAVIOR STYLE AS A SOURCE OF INFLUENCE

done to date on social influence only one of In almostall of the research deand its possiblesourceshas been studiedtheoretically experimentally: pendency. for Nonetheless, certainreasons,we cannotmake use of it in the study in of innovation. Firstof all, it seemsclear that dependency relationto an ratherthan a is whichinnovates, a consequence individualor a subgroup The an to cause of an actionaimedat exerting influence. necessity heed the the or expertsfollows adoptionof computer television advice of electronics, or techor electronic computers, television, any kind of specific equipment, A whichtransforms social whichtrulyinnovates, nical invention. minority reality, only rarelyhas powerat the outset.In addition,it is to be noted are or who changerules, thattheindividuals subgroups values,or knowledge, is as to not judged as being superior othersinsofar competence concerned. in which interests us In short,dependency relationto the phenomenon nor a differential factor whichcan a variable, is neither decisiveindependent which is exerted.Thus, we were promptedto seek account for influence whichis not subjectto the limitations sourceof influence whichwe another and the have just mentioned, whichcomescloserto expressing activeresolute of We character a minority. believethatwe have foundit in the behavioral style of the individualor those individualswho propose a solutionto a a problem, new normfora group.Good reasonsexistto supposethatin the the way in which the behavioris organizedand process of innovation, to could suffice provokethe acceptanceor the rejection a judgof presented the courseof social interaction. Moreover mentor a proposedmodelduring of the the consistency the behaviorof a minority, fact that it resolutely a manner, maintains well defined pointof viewand developsit in a coherent sourceof influence, whichunderthe appearsas if it oughtto be a powerful wouldnot be a resultof an explicitdependency. circumstances made by one of the authorsin collaboration A seriesof experiments with and Moscovici,1967) has alreadyshownthe impactof a con(Faucheux sistentminority judgmentsconcerning upon a majoritywhen preference of stimulior the modification an implicit normare involved. equiprobable of whichis a continuation theprevious one, we should In thepresent study, normto be like to provethat thisactionis also possiblewhenthe majority or is changed explicit quasi-physical. of The presence a normcan be dissuch an effect? Why are we expecting

INFLUENCE OF A CONSISTENT MINORITY

367

in of tinguished the spontaneous unanimity thosewho share it, and in the expectancy that a high probability responsewill occur in the face of a and opinions stimulus a determinate or object. The validityof judgments (Kelley, 1967) and the stability relations of withthe environment guarare are anteedowingto thisnormonlyif thesetwo criteria expected. mode fromthis customary Now, let us supposethat a subgroup diverges of responseand that he providesan alternative mode of responseto the in The diversity whichreplacesuniformity same object,the same stimulus. and the groupis a creatorof uncertainty of conflict;doubt is cast upon of of thehierarchy responses each personor of the groupand the variability will By on is increased. insisting his answer,a minority not only engender a conflict, will intensify conflict, the because it poses its own judgments but and opinions havingthe same value, as beingequivalentto thoseof the as majority(Worell 1967). Moreover, this insistence proves that takingone's has no intention conceding of stand is not casual and that the subgroup or to submitting the group. This exertsa tremendous pressuretowardsacceptanceof the new and surprising response. We mustalso add that theseconflict relations assume in character thecase wherethe stimulus physical.The reality a particular is to be judged in thesecircumstances not individual, is arbitrary: is comit universal. matter mon,in principle No who, facedwithsuch a reality, one is expectedto react in the same way, and each one imaginesthat he is reacting he is supposedto react. as In an experiment cited by Asch (1962), Sperlingdemonstrated that the influence exerted an individual muchgreater on is whenhe believesin the existenceof an objective response,than when he does not believe in it. Thus, the fact that a physical stimulusis involveddoes not necessarily of workagainst the exertion influence a minority; the contrary on by it it. may facilitate The majority has one singlemeans to reducethe tension, to ignorethe judgment the minority: of that is to transform conflict the of This means that it mustbe able into a conflict attribution. of response not to explain the difference as being producedby the properties the of but as being producedby those who perceiveit: an anomalyof stimulus, vision,a lesser judgmentcapacity. This is possible when minority an is isolated individual(Moscovici 1969). in such an attribution In the eventthatnothing the situation permits and of a that members the minority, constituting dyad, cannotbe distinguished of thenthe latterare even more members the majority such traits, from by or obligatedeitherto adopt the responseof the minority to reject it, i.e., to polarize.No othermeans is left to themto restorethe invariability of world. in response theirrelationwiththe external

368

SOCIOMETRY

the in With thesepresuppositions mind,in orderto demonstrate influence upon a majoritywithina group, we have conceivedan of a minority in experiment which: and of is by (a) Responseconflict increased the consistency the minority amongits members. by the consensus of is (b) Objectivity an implicitexigency judgments. are and minority exclusive, constituting of (c) The responses themajority eitherone just negatingthe other,as, forexample, without an alternative, of if one wereto say that two unequal amounts dots weresaid to be equal. in (d) The difference judgmentcannot be accountedfor by individual for to qualities. (Thus it was necessary the minority be composedof more in the than one person.) Otherwise conflict responsecould be transformed of differences be explained by to permitting into a conflict attribution, for personaleccentricities, example. in of is withthat (e) The judgment the majority the laboratory identical outsidethe laboratory, that the judgment the so of of any randomsample counterto the normalexpectations can minority be expectedto be directly in society.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND RESULTS

FIRSTEXPERIMENT. The subjectswereliberalarts,law and social science femalesubjectswere material Giventhenatureof the experimental students. in involvement evaluating colorof an the because of theirgreater preferred types of object. The stimuliused consistedof slides with two different the in mounted them: (1) photofilters filters permitting passage of a beam of light of the dominantwave length (X=483.5) in the blue scale; in whichreducedlightintensity certainproportion. (2) neutralfilters In a set of six slides,threeslides were moreluminous than threeothers. in were studiedin orderto make the task These variations lightintensity Theireffect thisexperiment controlled. in and less boring. was morerealistic Each experimental group consistedof fournaive subjectsand two conOnce the subjects were seated in a row before the screen on federates. whichwere to be projectedthe slides, theywere told that this would be At on an experiment color perception. the same time they were informed in that theywouldbe asked to judge the colorand variation lightintensity of of a seriesof slides (a briefexplanation the meaningof lightintensity the Beforepassinga judgment, whole groupwas asked to was furnished). in "chromatic takea Polack testcollectively, orderto checktheparticipants' sense." to those subjectswho This test had a twofold objective: first, eliminate

INFLUENCE OF A CONSISTENT MINORITY

369

perchancemighthave visual abnormalities; second,to emphasizethe fact that everyone the group had normalvision,so that the confederates' in in response will not be attributed a difference vision,i.e., to a personal to factorexternalto the experimental situation. Afterthe collective correction the resultto the test,and afterhaving of what the ascertained that everyone sees normally, subjectswere instructed responsesmightbe given and how the experiment would be conducted, to wit replying aloud and naminga simple color as well as estimating the lightintensity numerical in to terms(rangingfrom0 forthe dimmest 5 for the brightest).Subjects were also told that the preliminary trial would be just forpracticein whicheach subject would only make a light intensity judgment. The real purposeof thesepreliminary trialswas to enable the subjects and to immunize themin to get acquaintedwiththe color of the stimulus McGuire's (1964) sense of word against the futureonslaughtof the instructed whichdoes not share the norm.During thesepreliminary minority trials the confederates answeredat random. Following these trials, the series of six different slides was presentedsix times, the order of the slides varying fromone seriesto the next. Thus these were systematically each one lasting15 seconds, 36 trials, separatedby approximately seconds 5 In of darkness. each trialthe two confederates exerted influence calling by the color "green." In this manner,the confederates were both internally fromone trial to the next with each other,since they gave all consistent the timethe same response. At the end of the experiment subject filledout a questionnaire the conand the othermembers the group.As usual, the real the of cerning stimuli were explainedbeforeleaving the room. objectivesof the experiment the seating of the two conTwo variationswere introduced regarding federates of and the presentation the stimuli. variation:in 12 groupsthe confederates (1) Confederate wereseated side by side and gave the firstand second responses, while in the 20 other and occupiedthe first and fourth groupstheywere separated, places. The variationin the seatingof the second confederate aimed at modifying was of the interpretation his behavior,that is to say, to make him appear of more independent the firstconfederate. (2) The stimulusvariation:in orderto test the impactof the commitment to the firstresponseand to permita possible change,we modified of the mode of presentation stimuli.In 13 groupswhich included those were seated in position1 and 4, the continuity in whichthe confederates of the sequence of the stimuliwas interrupted introducing by two oneminute pauses aftera sequenceof 12 slides.

370

SOCIOMETRY

the same fromone trial The orderof responseof the subjectsremained to the next forthe durationof the experiment. an EXPERIMENT. wondered the whether subjectsexperienced We SECOND influence which,even if it did not resultin a change in verbal response We on did duringthe experiment, have a lasting effect theirperception. threshold whichwould reveal expected shiftin the blue-green a designation Certainsubjects a reactionthatwas repressed duringthe social interaction. to did refuse adoptopenlytheminority to feeling compelled remain response, began to doubt its loyal to the generalnorm,even when they themselves itselfby an Here one might manifesting validity. expecta latentattraction extension the designation of "green" to stimuliin a zone whicha control of groupwould call blue. The oppositereaction(extension the notionblue to stimuliin the greenzone) would be the resultof polarization. is The first experiment, stageof thisexperiment identicalto the preceding At exertsits influence the majority. the on thatis to say that the minority thanked subjects telling them that end of this phase the experimenter in would like researcher who was also interested visionphenomena, another in research of to solicittheirparticipation another project,independent the He one in whichtheyhad just participated. left the roomand the second entered and experimenter immediately repeatedhis request.The latterhaving obtainedthe agreement the subjectsseated themarounda table and of relatedto the effect the exercise of said to themthat it was an experiment the material,isolated the He then described about the visionphenomena. themto writedown subjectsby means of cardboardscreensand instructs on the responsesindividually a sheet of paper. The materialconsistedof 100-hueset perception test. 16 disks in the blue-green zone of Farnsworth Three disks from each end of the "blue" and "green"scale wereabsolutely After having unambiguous, theother10 stimuli but might appearambiguous. the instructions made sure that the subjects understood well, the experiof menter announcedthe beginning the test. Each disk was presented on for a neutralbackground a periodlastingapproximately seconds; it was 5 placed in the centerof the table so that it would be visible to everyone. The seriesof 16 disks was presented10 timesin the continuous method. was randomized. The order of presentation Afterthe discrimination test the the first experimenter returned, subjectsfilledin the postexperimental and endedin the same manner the previous as questionnaire the experiment one. in Ten groups participated this experiment. whichwas identicalto the first THaRD EXPERIMENT. In this experiment the In one, only we diversified consistency degreeof the confederates. this case theyanswered24 times"green" and 12 times"blue," the dispersion

INFLUENCE OF A CONSISTENT MINORITY

371

of "blue" answersbeing randomized. Eleven groups participatedto this For The control groupwas thesame forthe threeexperiments. thisgroup The controlsubjectsalso the presentation the stimulus of was continuous. phase. took,of course,the discrimination afterthe initialexperimental test In all we had 22 controlsubjects,or fourgroupsof 6 subjects,with the response elimination two subjectswho failed to give the discrimination of according the instructions. to RESULTS "Green" responses(responseswhichexpressthe 8.42 per cent influence minority the experimental of in groups) constituted of the answersof the 128 naive subjects in the two firstexperiments. There is no significant difference betweenthe two series of groupson the questionnaire. Amongthe 22 perception testsnor on the postexperimental two greenresponses, representsubjectsof the control group,only one gave subjects.That means ing 0.25 per centof the responses the uninfluenced of that the latterperceivedthe stimulus reallyblue and that this normis as firmly established socially. The difference subjects on the basis betweencontroland experimental U of Mann Whitney's test (Z=2.10) turnsout to be significant (p=.019, as one-tailed test). Other data show this influence well. Subjects changed theirresponse (giving 4 or more green responses) in 43.75 per cent of the groups.The percentage individualswho yielded was 32 per cent. of of Thus we have two categories groups,those in whichno subjectswere In influenced and those in which subjects were influenced. the latter,it can be seen that 57 per cent of the subjectsor two subjectsper groupon the average gave the same responseas the confederates. 18.70 per cent greenresponses were obtainedin these groups. Thus, the quantityof green responseswhich we obtained was not so as much the resultof isolated individualswho followedthe confederate, of the within group.The confederates' theresultof a modification judgment or and the typeof introduction-continuous, discontinuous seatingposition, effect. -of the stimulidid not have any differentiation Moreover,we have noticed that even thoughno color contrasteffect when light inexisted,the subjectswere more similarto the confederates wereweak thanwhentheywere strong(Z=3.37, p<.003, Manntensities concernU phenomenon Whitney test). This agreeswiththe Bezold-Briicke luminosities. of color with different of Yet, irrespective the ing perception was significantly of greenresponse the higherin the luminosity proportion than in the control experimental groups groups.
THE PERCEPTUAL TASK.

experiment.

372

SOCIOMETRY

In thethird experiment, where one or severalresponses theconfederates of we A wereinconsistent, obtainedonly 1.25 per cent greenresponses. similar proposalwas obtainedin groupscompletely inconsistent per centblue(50 50 per cent green responsesof the confederates). Althoughwe have to inconexploremoresystematically variationof inter-and intra-subject the the resultswe have just mentioned of sistency, are suggestive a marked influence the behaviorstyleof a minority. of THE DISCRIMINATION TEST. The question here concernswhetherthe of subjects who changed their social response under the influence the we consistent minority changedtheirperceptive also code. In addition, also wanted to verifythe hypothesis that the subjects who did not change was not at all theirsocial response, even in the groupwherethe majority influenced this level by the minority, least changedtheirperceptual at at code. of The measurement the thresholdmakes it possible to verify this Our calculations hypothesis. bear on the threshold values, whichwere obout curve of individualretained by a graphicmethodon the smoothed threevalues: (1) the 50 per cent threshold indicating sponses.We retained the point in the orderedsequence of stimuliwhere the subject gives as many"blue" as "green"judgments;(2) the lowerthreshold value indicates the point wherethe subject gives 75 per cent greenand 25 per cent blue judgments;and (3) the upper threshold value, where the subject gives To 25 per cent greenand 75 per cent blue judgments. study the influence of the consistent we eliminated resultsof three minority, subsequently the subjects in the experimental groups who polarized. Their 50 per cent It threshold was lower than that of all the controlgroup thresholds. was of theirlowerthreshold value, whichindicatesa generalization the notion the of blue in the greenzone. Then,by comparing 50 per cent,75 per cent, of and 25 per cent thresholds the experimental groups (37 subjects) and the control groups(22 subjects) we obtained(Table 1) the expectedshift. the effect interaction of betweenminority All of the data reflect and in of affects majority themodification theperceptual code. This modification TABLE 1 for of Shiftin the Threshold Perception the Color Green
Threshold 50 75 25 ControlGroup SD Mean 47.39 46.16 48.41 1.21 1.42 1.14 ExperimentalGroup Mean SD 48.03 46.85 49.19 1.38 1.54 1.28 t 1.78 1.68 2.33 P (one-tailed level) .038 .047 .01

INFLUENCE

OF A CONSISTENT

MINORITY

373

is more subjects than the change of verbal responses.This proposition supportedby other data. On the one hand, if within the experimental groupsa distinction apparentbetweensubjects who sometimes is adopted rethe minority responseand subjects who never adopted the minority sponses, such difference no emerges the discrimination for the three in test thresholds underconsideration. the contrary, must be observedthat On it shift even morepronounced groupswherethe majority not change is for did than it is forthosewhereit changed,and the Student'st of 1.50 is close to the 1.68 value,whileit would be significant .10.1 at We had made the assumption that in the groupswhere therewas no changein social response, wherethe "green"response or had been in some way "repressed" one would observea greater number "green"judgments of in the discrimination test. One can see that this is indeed the case. The difference between the groups where the majoritydid not change and wherethe majority did changeis significant (X2= 14.94, p<.002). We can concludethat the consistent minority an even greater has influence the on perceptive code of the subjectsthan on theirverbalresponseto the slides. Of coursethe experimental technique employed was not without faults.2 its But the resultsobtained should be mentioned only for the new research line it gives us. THE POSTEXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES. The postexperimental quesThe divergence opinionor tionnaires had devisedshowedus that: (a) we of responseof the consistent minority constrains the subjects to a cognitive activity bearingupon the stimulus. The perceptive changeis not produced by a pure attraction towardsthe minority. (b) The relativecertainty of the majorityis probablyweakenedas a resultof the confrontation with the minority, and its problemwas to explain not why it followedthe minority, why it did not followit. but (a) The Cognitive Activity The Experimental of Group. To begin with that occasionallyseeinggreen slides, or seeing green we can put forward in blue slides is not due to a simple acquiescence to the response of the minority.
1 Thomasand Bistey(1964) report study usingthesamestimulus our studyand as a "green"or "mostly green"showed theyfoundthat subjectswho called the stimulus the wavelength thanthose who calledit significantly greater generalization toward longer direction. "blue"or "mostly blue."Our results in the opposite are 2 Usingthesame test, Brownand Lenneberg is (1958) showedthat there a relationexand whichis a function stimulus of ship between color-naming color recognition time.Nevertheless since we posure-time. Thus we should have varied the exposure from their name.But codablecolors, should able to recover we be them dealtwithhighly withtheirs whichshowsthatinconsistency within in general studyis in agreement our in and thegroup corresponds inconsistency hesitation theindividual. to

374

SOCIOMETRY

is Having raisedthe question:"To whatextent it possiblefortheseslides that subjectsin the experimental as to be perceived green"we ascertained in degree than groups did not accept this possibility a more significant subjects in the controlgroups.On the other hand, however,subjects in the former groupsdid prove more inclinedto accept the green response than subjectsin the lattergroups (t 2.64, p<.008). Thus, we can infer withtheminority to an inclination led thatthedesireto reachan agreement to to see what the latterwere seeing,to make an effort look for green With this in mind we asked the subjects: how many in the blue stimuli. Subjectsin the experimental different nuancesof colordid you distinguish? groups whilesubjectsin the control morethantwonuances, groups perceived can saw at mostone or two (Z 2.12, p<.0342). A differentiation also be groups.Subjectswho yielded subjectswithin experimental the made between those who did not yield to the to the minority say more nuances than theydid or did not yield whether minority. (Z=2.79, p<.005). Moreover, subjectsin groupsin whicha changein responseoccurred to the minority maintained moreshades than thosein groupswherethe majority perceived blue (Z= 1.78, p<.076). Using an apits position, and always responded theseshadesby naming we propriate question, thenasked subjectsto specify the colors which composedthem.No matterwhat these shades were or how many were cited, for purposesof this analysis we retainedonly the of highestpercentage green foundon the responsesheet,using it as an limit of a subject's attemptto find this color. All index of the extreme more green than those groups distinguished subjects in the experimental in the controlgroups (Z=2.99, p<.003). Of course,in the experimental saw more than 30 per cent groups,subjectswho yielded to the minority tends to point to the fact that members (Z- 4.92, p<.001). Everything made an effort take into account the viewpoint the to of of the majority At the minority, verify objectivebasis of its judgment. no timedid they to remainpassive,nor were theycontentblindlyto accept or reject a norm of opposed to theirown. The effect this was probablythe modification, or as we saw, of their own perception their definition green and of of blue. Naive subjects, whoconstituted Minority. of (b) Perception theConsistent the majorityin the experimental groupswere more inclinedto see green in the blue slides than the controlsubjects (and actually did see more whichtheyhad to solve was the followproblem green). The psychological answer was not ing: why, althoughhaving agreed that the minority's did without was foundation, theynot yield to it, since a physicalstimulus for was the involved?The only possible explanation such a contradiction

INFLUENCE OF A CONSISTENT MINORITY

375

Thus while they assertionthat they were less certainthan the minority. themselves wereinterested what was proposedto them,theyconsidered by normal to be more competent than the minority, since they represented perception-therefore had the rightto yield or not to yield. Needless they to say, these trendscan be accountedfor in otherways. In spite of the resultsof the Polack Test, subjects did not believe that a person who always perceived these slides as green could have a very good color in Even if he had good vision, his competency the area of perception. of colormustbe inferior thatof the majority people. On the otherhand to the consistent natureof the minority responsein the face of the different emitted the majority, judgments by Without suppliedgreat self-assurance. it can nonetheless seen that the first be comingto any definite conclusion, considered interpretation applies to the two series of predictions together, each seriesseparately. whilethe secondconcerns two Now let us examinethe resultsobtainedmorein detail. In the first who participated questions subjectswereasked to judge each of the persons in the experiment, including on themselves, a 10-point scale (fromgood to intensities and second to bad), as to theircapacity firstto discriminate of perceivecolors.A comparison the grades whichsubjectsgave to themand is selves,confederates othersubjectsforcolor perception veryinstructive.On thewhole, subjectsconsidered thattheconfederates' colorperception was not as good as theirs, both in the groupswherethe confederates were seated nextto each other(t=9.98, p<.001), and in the groupswherethey were separated(t 7.02, p<.001). They also considered that confederates did not perceivecolorsas well the othermembers the group (t 10.83, of p<.001). Nevertheless, was feltthat the secondconfederate a better it had colorperception thanthe first confederate (Zz=2.04, p .04, Mann-Whitney U test). Thus the members the majority of judged themselves more competentthantheminority, theyexperienced and littleanxiety regarding their perceptive capacity. In What about certainty? theirpostexperimental questionnaire subjects had to classify in "the personswho participated the experiment, according to whether theyweremoreor less sure of theirresponses." Subjectsjudged to confederates be more sure of theirresponsesthan they were (t-5.02, members thegroup(t=4.42, P<.07). A difference of p<.07) and thanother revealeditselfalso in the perception the two confederates. of The confederate seated in the first positionwas judged as being more sure of his responsethan the second confederate, both in the groupswheretheywere seated next to each other (t=2.54, p<0.7) and in the groupswherethey were separated (t 3.22, p<.07). These evaluationswere shared by all

376

SOCIOMETRY

subjects,whether theywereamongthosewho responded like the consistent minority, whether or theywerein the groupswherethe majority resisted all influence. Threetrends clearly emerge from theseresults:(a) subjectsjudged themselves more competent and less certainthan confederates;(b) judgmentsof competence and of certitude confederates an inverserelaof had tion; (c) the confederate the second positionwas perceiveddifferently in fromthe one in the firstpositionand as being closer to other subjects. These trendscorroborate observations made in other experiments. Thus, Brehmand Lipsher (1958) provedthatperceivedtrustworthiness would be greater when the communicator took an extreme positionon eitherside of the issue, than when he took a moderate position.More recently, Eisinger and Mills (1968) studiedthe effect the discrepancy the communicator of of and competence. positionupon his sincerity They provedthat a communiand as catoron the oppositeside will be perceived moreincompetent more sincerein comparison witha communicator is opposedbut moremodwho erate. These experiments suggestthat the responseof an individualor an extreme has moreweight.But what interests here is the fact us subgroup thatobtaining same resultsas ours,theyoffer the indirect supportin favor witha normopposed of the view that consistency, especiallyof a minority is to the normof the majority, at the same time an index of extremism. to Now, this extremism, the extentthat it shows itselfuncompromising, and engenders anxietylinkedto the disagreement, places the othersin an a situationwheretheymust eitherconcedeor polarize in orderto reduce and diminishthe anxiety.As nothingpermitsthem to this disagreement polarize,thenin certaingroups,subjectsyielded. us also enlightened about the role of the second The trendsdiscovered In confederate. a sense,he does not contribute any supplementary weight the of confederate. make the hyWe to the response the "innovator," first pothesisthat his behaviorservesas an exampleto the othersubjects; he is the demonstrates someone capable of choosing minority that response that thereis a choice possible betweenthe two alternatives and to a certain them.In short,if the effect the firstconfederate an of extent, justifies is the effect the second would be what economists of influence effect, call In effect. any case the minority's a demonstration influence cannotbe atto tributed a possible leadershiprecognized the group. Questionedas by to which personsin the group they would like to find themselves a in morefrequently similarsituation with,subjectsdid not chooseconfederates of than any othermember the group.Likewise,when asked: "Who would in you like to see lead the discussion(about the experiment) the group?" trendcan be observedto choose confederates a slight,nonsignificant less than othernaive subjects.

INFLUENCE OF A CONSISTENT MINORITY DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

377

The experiment whichwe have just describedshows,at least as far as is female subjects are concerned,that by being consistenta minority capable of influencing majorityat the level of verbal and perceptual a responses. But this factmustbe examined moreclosely. GENERALITY OF THE BEHAVIORAL STYLE AS A SOURCE OF INFLUENCE. We have at the beginning this articleput forward of the idea that the conwhen a minority conis sistency the behavioris a source of influence of And it clearlyappears cernedand whenan innovation processis involved. that conformity an effect consistency not of dependence is of and towards the majorityof the group. To substantiate this conclusion, will limit we a ourselves Asch'sexperiments. knowthatin theseexperiments groupto We majority can induce a single individualto give answersgoing counterto perceptualevidence.The conditions requiredfor this effect occur are to the usage of a nonambiguous stimulus, need to respondpublicly,and the the presenceof a unanimousmajority.This majority, accordingto Asch (1962:497) gives rise to a propensity adopt the erroneous to "conformist" of responses the group.Our interpretation of course,different, first is, but let us look to the data and theirmeaning. We can consider that unanimity to in a groupcorresponds inter-individual to which consistency, consistency of and identity responseof several subjects to a resultsfromcoincidence At given stimulus. the same time,the sequence of "erroneous responses," a of the identity responsesof each confederate through series of stimuli, intra-individual What do we see when we expressesinternal, consistency. examineAsch's results?We see that a unanimousmajorityfromtwo to sixteenconfederates provokedthe acceptenceof "erroneous"responsesfor of one third(32 per cent) of the responses the naive subjects.The increase to in the numberof confederates more than threehas therefore effect no of theseresponses. there no direct is relation on thefrequency between Thus, the magnitude this social pressure and conformity. of Now, only one single in confederate a group made up of seven or eight personshas to break answersfor the numberof conformist the unanimity givingcorrect by responsesto drop to 10.4 per cent or 5.5 per cent. Thus, a groupof three is unanimous than persons moreinfluential a groupof eightnon-ununanimous This is tantamount sayingthatit is the inter-personal to persons. consistency of of, ratherthan the strength social pressurewhich is more important, and comes closestto accounting the variationin the rate of influence. for Asch's (1955) and Allen and Levine's (1968) experiments give much to thatif social support was important weight thisinnovation. They thought the in order to reduce conformist constraint, dissenter ought to give the

378

SOCIOMETRY

responsewhich the subjects privatelyconsideredto be correct.On the was wheregroupconsistency the critical in contrary, the case of unanimity with the group, whetheror not his variable,a dissenter'sdisagreement withthe subject'sprivatejudgment, and werecorrect in agreement responses to The was sufficient decreaseconformity. resultsof the two experiments whichis the decisivefactor. consensus show that it is lack of unanimous over of consistency time-of theidentical Whatis theeffect intra-individual of repetition subjectsresponsesto a series of stimuli?As we know,Asch responded used twotypesof trials:"neutral"trialsin whichthe confederates reand "critical" trials in which the confederates in a "correct"manner, a Diachronistically, groupappearedall manner. spondedin an "erroneous" withitselfwhen therewere more"critical"trialsthan the moreconsistent of "neutral"ones. Asch (1956) varied the proportion the neutraltrialsin relationto the criticaltrials (1/6, 1/2, 1/1, 4/1) and althoughthe difof a ferences were not significant, decrease in the percentage conformist 36.8 per cent,38.6 per cent,26.2 per was observed(50 per cent, responses cent) as the majoritybecame less coherentin time. Iscoe and Williams the (1963) obtainedsimilarresults.On the whole,considering information we have at hand today,we can say that it is the behavioralstyle of a which or and not the pure amountof social pressure majority a minority exerted. is revealedto be at the originof influence CHANGE OF VERBAL AND PERCEPTUAL RESPONSES. We have seen that the at of alteration the answer,whilenot negligible the conscioussocial level, level.Our present stateof knowledge at is moremarked, thelatentindividual it or whether is of a perceptive of a verbal does not enable us to ascertain nature (Goldiamond,1958). However,given that most of the experiments of in this field (Tajfel, 1969) with the notableexception Flament (1958) at reportinfluence the verbal level and not at the level of perception, They oblige us the resultswe have obtainedare all the moreremarkable. a and a changein code, between between changein response to distinguish level and influence the code level. In thissense, at at influence the response in minority, one experiment, we have the rightto say that the consistent in and not only provokeda real modification the normof the majority, in its response. it is If this phenomenon rare in the laboratory, is not in politicallife. of Thus, a politicalpartyoftenadopts the ideas or the vocabulary another to Yet partyor social movement. citizenscontinue vote forthissame party, to respondto this party's slogans. For example,in France the Gaullist in adopted part of the its government framing own educationprogram, in and workers May 1968. students and the program rhetoric proposedby votes for the Gaullistparty he believes when a Frenchman Nevertheless,

INFLUENCE OF A CONSISTENT MINORITY

379

that he is "responding"to the same political body and in the same manneras he did in the past, althoughboth it and its representatives have changedtheiropinionson very specific questions.Indeed, it is conthe majority's code ceivable that minorities more capable of changing are would have more influence on than its social response, while the majority than on his intellectual perceptive or verbal response code. the individual's This is an historical reality.Great innovators have succeededin imposing receiving directrecognition theirideas, theirdiscoveries, without necessarily fortheir influence. example, For have assimilated notions manypsychologists to the value elaboratedby psychoanalysis, the while refusing recognize all of psychoanalysis. it Thus, if we reallywant to understand processof social influence, the and is not enoughto studymorecarefully role of minorities of innovathe of than tion.We mustbegin to exploremoresubtle mechanisms influence those which are at work in direct and visible acceptanceof normsand judgments proposed.
REFERENCES Allen, V. L. 1965 "Situational factorsin conformity." Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology 2:133-175. Allen,V. L. and J. M. Levine "Social support, dissent and conformity." 1968 Sociometry31(June):138-149. Asch, S. E. 1955 "Opinions and social pressure."Scientific American 193 (November) :31-35. 1962 Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Brehm, J. W. and D. Lipsher "Communicator-communicatee 1959 discrepancy and perceived communicator 'trustworthiness'." Journal of Personality 27(June) :352-361. Brown, R. W. and E. H. Lenneberg 1958 "Studies in linguistic relativity." Pp. 9-18 in Maccoby, Newcomb, and Hartly (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology,New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Eisinger,R. and J. Mills and competenceof a communicator a function 1968 as "Perceptionof the sincerity of the extremity his position." Journalof ExperimentalSocial Psychology of 4(April):224-232. Faucheux, C. and S. Moscovid "Le style de comportement d'une minorit6et son influence sur les reponses 1967 d'une majorit6." Bulletin du Centre d'Etudes et RecherchesPsychologiques 16(Octobre-Decembre):337-360. Flament, C. 1958 Influence Sociale et Perception. Annie Psychologique 58(Fasdcule 2):378-

400.

380

SOCIOMETRY

I. GoIldimond, and L. F. Malpasm Journal the of 1958 "Locus of hypnotically induced changes colorresponses." in of 51 :1117-1121. OpticalSociety America (October) Iscoe,I. and M. S. Williams behaviorof children." 1963 "Experimental variablesaffecting conformity the Journal Personality (June): of 31 234-246. Kelley, H. H. Pp. 1967 "Attribution theory socialpsychology." 192-241in D. Levine (ed.), in on of Press. Nebraska Symposium Motivation. Lincoln:University Nebraska McGuire, W. in Social Psy1964 "Inducing resistance persuasion." to Advances Experimental chology 191-229. 1: Moscovici, S. on Symposium Social 1969 BehavioralStyle as a Source of Social Influence. London. IXth International of Influence, Congres Psychology, Moscovici, and C. Faucheux S. 1969 Social Influence, Conformity Bias and the Study of ActiveMinorities. of Center Advanced Sciences Strafford (Mimeo). Studyin Behavioral Tajfel,H. in Pp. 1969 "Social and cultural factors perception." 315-394in Lindzeyand Aronson(eds.) The Handbookof social psychology, III (2nd ed.), Vol. Reading:AddisonWesley. Thomas, R. and G. Bistey D. as and rangeof genof 1964 "Stimulus generalization a function the number test of eralization stimuli." Psychology 68(December): Journal Experimental 599-602. Worell, J. of 1967 "Some ramifications exposureto conflict." Progressin Experimental Research4:91-125. Personality