In most studies comparing majority and minority influence, there is an emphasis on influence in the sense of “prevailing.” Within this context, evidence exists that majorities exert more public influence and that minority influence, when it occurs, tends to operate primarily at the latent level. In the present formulation, it is proposed that the differences between majority and minority influence are in fact more extensive once influence is considered in a broader context. In particular, it is proposed that exposure to persistent minority views fosters greater thought about the issue. Furthermore, this thought tends to be divergent rather than convergent, and as a result, people tend to be better decision makers because they attend to more aspects of the situation and reexamine premises. By contrast, it is proposed that exposure to persistent majority views fosters convergent thinking and leads to an unreflective acceptance of the majority position. Three experimental studies are reported that directly test some of the propositions, and the formulation is linked to available knowledge in the areas of social cognition, creativity, and problem solving both at the individual and group levels. Finally, some practical implications of this formulation for small group decision making and for society at large are offered.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1,256 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.