the social impact of majorities and minorities · pdf filemajorities and minorities 439 the...

Psychological Review1981, Vol. 88, No. 5, 438-453

Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.0033-295X/81 /8805-0438S00.75

The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities

Bibb LataneOhio State University

Sharon WolfMorehead State University

Previous theorizing about social influence processes has led to the emergence oftwo research traditions, each focusing on only a subset of influence situations.Research on conformity looks at the influence of the majority on a passive mi-nority, whereas research on innovation considers the influence of active minoritieson a silent majority. In the present article, we review these two lines of research,as well as some recent evidence, from the perspective of a new theory of socialimpact. This theory views social influence as resulting from forces operating ina social force field and proposes that influence by either a majority or a minoritywill be a multiplicative function of the strength, immediacy, and number of itsmembers. Social impact theory offers a general model of social influence processesthat integrates previous theoretical formulations and empirical findings and ac-counts for the reciprocal influence of majorities and minorities. By viewing socialinfluence as a unitary concept, social impact theory permits comparisons betweenconformity and innovation and predicts the relative magnitude of their effects.

Traditional approaches to social influencehave concentrated almost exclusively on sit-uations in which the majority serves as thesource of influence pressure (Allen, 1965;Darley & Darley, 1976; Kiesler & Kiesler,1969). Considering dependence to be theprocess by which influence operates, re-searchers have sought to identify those vari-ables that increase the dependence of indi-viduals and minorities upon the majority.Thus, the majority's size, status, and powerhave been systematically investigated. In thecontext of research on conformity, the mi-nority has been viewed as the passive recip-ient of forces emanating from the majority.

Recent research on innovation (Levine,

Preparation of this article was supported by NationalScience Foundation Grant BNS-7619629 to the firstauthor. Portions of this article were presented at theInternational Symposium on Social Influence Processes,Laboratoire Europfeen de Psychologie Sociale, Barce-lona, Spain, September 1980; at the annual meeting ofthe Kentucky Academy of Science, Lexington, Novem-ber 1980; and at the annual convention of the Mid-western Psychological Association, Detroit, Michigan,April 1981. Vernon Allen, Jack Brehm, Sharon Brehm,Timothy Brock, John Darley, James Davis, John Harvey,John Herstein, Jeffrey Jackson, Norbert Kerr, SergeMoscovici, Charlan Nemeth, Anthony Pratkanis, JohnPryor, Richard Sorrentino, and Maryla Zaleska pro-vided valuable comments on an earlier draft.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Bibb Latane,Behavioral Sciences Laboratory, 404B W. 17th Avenue,Columbus, Ohio 43210.

1980; Moscovici, 1976; Moscovici & Ne-meth, 1974) suggests that individuals andactive minorities can serve as sources of in-fluence pressure. When the minority is viewedas a source, rather than as a target, it is clearthat traditional models of social influencemust be modified. A minority, by definition,is disadvantaged in terms of those charac-teristics—size, status, and power—thatwould make a majority dependent upon it.Turning away from dependence, Moscovicihas argued that behavioral style is the mech-anism by which influence operates, partic-ularly when the influence source is a rela-tively powerless minority. In the context ofresearch on innovation, the majority hasbeen viewed as the passive recipient offereesemanating from the minority.

Moscovici's challenge to traditional con-ceptions has led to a rift in our theorizingabout social influence processes. Two dis-tinct research traditions have emerged, eachoffering a different view as to what consti-tutes a crucial independent variable, an ap-propriate dependent variable (Moscovici,1980), and indeed a valid understanding ofthe process by which social influence oper-ates. Although Moscovici (1976, p. 68) hassuggested that both the majority and theminority can be simultaneously the sourceand target of social influence, this possibilityhas not been investigated. Our purpose in

438

MAJORITIES AND MINORITIES 439

the present article will be to explore its im-plications.

By considering the simultaneous and mu-tual influence of majorities and minorities,social impact theory (Latane, 1981) wouldseem to provide a means of bridging the the-oretical gap that has been created and in-tegrating the findings of both research tra-ditions. This theory proposes that socialinfluence can be understood as resultingfrom social forces operating in a social forcefield. The amount of influence produced byeither a majority or a minority will be amultiplicative function of the strength, im-mediacy, and number of its members.

Our plan in the present article will be toreview briefly a traditional dependence modelof majority influence and Moscovici's modelof minority influence. Then the principles ofsocial impact theory will be presented andtheir application to an understanding of so-cial influence will be specified. Findings ofprevious research and of some recent re-search will be evaluated from the perspectiveof this theory. Finally, we will argue for thetheoretical advantages of viewing social in-fluence as a unitary concept.

Two Models of Social Influence

Majority Influence

Throughout the literature on majority in-fluence, researchers have considered depen-dence to be the process by which conformityoperates (Moscovici & Faucheux, 1972). Ingeneral, it has been shown that the greateran individual's dependence upon another in-dividual or group, the more he will conformto that individual's position or to the group'snorms. Jones and Gerard (1967) identify twotypes of dependence. Information depen-dence exists when an individual relies uponothers for information about the environ-ment or its meaning. Effect dependence ex-ists when an individual relies upon others forthe direct satisfaction of needs. This is sim-ilar to Deutsch and Gerard's (1955) distinc-tion between informational and normativeinfluence.

By virtue of its superior size, a majoritywould seem to be better able to satisfy bothof these dependence needs than would a

minority. The greater the number of indi-viduals who espouse a position, the betterbasis they provide for establishing socialreality (Festinger, 1954). Further, the greaterthe number of people advocating a position,the greater are their resources for rewardingthose who conform to that position and pun-ishing those who deviate. Supporting the in-creased effectiveness of larger numbers is thefinding that conformity to the majority po-sition increases with increases in majoritysize, at least up to three, where conformityappears to reach an asymptote (Asch, 1951).

Since majorities are seldom in a positionof dependence upon the minority, it is notsurprising that research in this tradition hasconsidered the majority as the source andthe minority as the target of influence pres-sure. In fact, most of this research has em-ployed trained or simulated confederates asthe majority and naive subjects as the mi-nority. Minority influence has not been apotential consequence of the influence pro-cess in this research. From the perspectiveof dependence models, it would be difficultto account for influence produced by a nu-merically disadvantaged minority.

Minority Influence

As Moscovici and his colleagues point out,minorities are not always the passive recip-ients of influence pressure. Empirical evi-dence has demonstrated that even non-eliteminorities (those lacking special expertise orpower) can be successful in modifying ma-jority norms (Allen, 1975; Moscovici, Lage,& Naffrechoux, 1969; Nemeth, Swedlund,& Kanki, 1974; Wolf, 1979). Dependencewould not appear to be the mechanism un-derlying such effects.

According to Moscovici's position, behav-ioral style—"the orchestration and pattern-ing" (Moscovici & Nemeth, 1974, p. 220)of behaviors—is the source of influence pres-sure. One style is consistency, the repetitionof a response or system of responses by anindividual over time. A consistent behavioralstyle demonstrates that the influence agentis confident and committed to his positionand that he is unwilling to compromise withrespect to it. These attributional conse-

440 BIBB LATANE AND SHARON WOLF

quences of consistent behavior mediate in-fluence.

The effectiveness of consistency as a sourceof influence pressure is not determined bydependence relations, and thus it is a par-ticularly potent source of influence when theinfluence agent is a minority. Moscovici andFaucheux (1972, p. 158) claim that if de-pendence relations are not salient, the num-ber of individuals involved in an interactionshould not directly affect the amount of in-fluence exerted. According to this model, theminority's numerical disadvantage does notpreclude it from exercising influence. In fact,the minority's smaller size may indirectlyincrease the influence it exerts by fosteringattributions of confidence and commitment.

Moscovici and Faucheux (1972, pp. 179-180) have argued that the "testimony of asingle subject who is perforce more consis-tent with himself is more influential than thetestimony of a theoretically less consistentsubgroup." Increasing the size of a minoritybeyond one almost inevitably implies a re-duction in consistency and consequently ininfluence. Likewise, Nemeth, Wachtler, andEndicott (1977) suggest that a minority hastwo stylistic advantages inversely related toits size. By standing out against the crowd,the minority gains visibility and becomes thefocus of attention in the group. As minoritysize increases, the majority's attention be-comes divided, and individual minoritymembers become less salient. Second, byadvocating its position consistently in theface of possible sanctions, the minority forcesthe attribution that it is confident and com-mitted to its position. As minority size in-creases, the potential for ostracism and re-jection is reduced, resulting in a decrease inperceived confidence and commitment andconsequently in influence.

In light of the hypothesized advantage ofsmaller numbers, it is not surprising thatresearch in this tradition has considered theminority as the source and the majority asthe target of influence pressure. In fact, thisresearch has typically employed trained orsimulated confederates as the minority andnaive subjects as the majority. Majority in-fluence has not been a potential outcome ofthe influence process in this research. Fromthe perspective of Moscovici's model, it is

difficult to account for majority influenceand particularly for increases in influencewith increases in the number of influencesources.

Summary

The apparent conclusion of research inthese two traditions is that majority andminority influence require different explan-atory frameworks. Minorities are inherentlydisadvantaged with respect to the variableshypothesized to mediate majority influ-ence—size, status, and power. Majorities areat a disadvantage with respect to the processhypothesized to mediate minority influ-ence—perceptions of confidence and com-mitment created by a consistent behavioralstyle. Two models of social influence havebeen proposed, neither of which can accounteasily for influence by both factions.

There would appear to be theoretical ad-vantages of viewing social influence as a uni-tary concept. A general model of social in-fluence processes, by viewing majority andminority influence as potential outcomes ofa single process mediated by a common setof variables, would offer a more parsimo-nious account of influence data covering agreater variety of influence situations (cf.Doms, Note 1). Social impact theory (La-tane, 1981) attempts to provide such a per-spective.

Social Impact Theory

Social impact may be defined as any ofthe great variety of changes that occur in anindividual as a result of the real, implied, orimagined presence of other individuals. So-cial impact theory describes these effects interms of social force fields analogous in somerespects to the physical force fields that gov-ern the transmission of light, sound, gravity,and so forth.

Social Forces: I = f(SIN)

As an example of a social force field, La-tane (1981) describes Figure 1 in terms ofthe impact of several sources on an individ-ual target. He identifies three factors thatdetermine the combined effect of the sourceson the target: the strength (S) or intensity


(status, power, ability, etc.) of the sourcepersons (represented by the areas of the cir-cles), their immediacy (/) or proximity inspace or time to the target, and the number(N) of source persons present.

Thus, the social impact experienced by atarget person should be a multiplicativefunction of these three factors, with / (im-pact) =f(SIN), suggesting that the effect ofany one variable will be greater the greaterthe value of the other variables. As any oneof these variables increases, there should bea corresponding increase in impact.

Marginal Impact: 1 = sN'

As in the case of physical stimuli, the psy-chological effect of other people may not bea simple linear function of their number orstrength. Rather, social impact may obeypsychosocial laws similar to the psycho-physical laws that govern the subjective im-pact of physical stimuli such as light andsound intensity (Stevens, 1975). Social im-pact theory proposes that the effect on a tar-get person of an increase in the number ofsources will be a power function, with eachadditional source producing less impact thanthe previous source. This principle of mar-ginally decreasing impact can be expressedby the equation / = sN1, where s is a scalingconstant reflecting the impact of a single

Figure 1. Multiplication of impact: I =f(SIN). (Figurefrom "Psychology of Social Impact" by Bibb Latane,American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 343-356. Copyright1981 by the American Psychological Association. Re-printed by permission.)

person in the specific situation and t is anexponent with a value of less than one. Thatthe value of the exponent must be less thanone implies that impact will grow as someroot of the number of source persons.

Latane (1981) describes 10 diverse areasof application of social impact theory in-cluding the interest value of news events,social inhibition of response to emergenciesand requests for help, tipping in restaurants,inquiring for Christ, group productivity, andcrowding in rats. With its few basic propo-sitions, it is clearly a broad theory applicableto a wide range of social phenomena, whichintegrates and formalizes ideas developed bypsychologists working in such disparate areasas Kurt Lewin in group dynamics and S. S.Stevens in psychophysics. It does, however,lead to highly specific and verifiable predic-tions. Here we illustrate its application tosocial influence phenomena.

The Social Influence Situation

Majority Influence

When influence pressure is generated bya unanimous majority, all of the social forcesacting on an individual target will pull himin the same direction. Social impact theoryproposes that conformity pressure will in-crease with increases in the strength, im-mediacy, and number of individuals advo-cating the majority position. Further, as thenumber of majority members increases, theirimpact on the target person should grow assome root of N, with the largest differencesin conformity being associated with the firstfew increments in N.

Asch and the magic number three. Thissituation is precisely that of the subject ina typical Asch (1951, 1952, 1956) experi-ment. Asch brought together groups of stu-dents for the ostensible purpose of makinga series of perceptual judgments. Their taskwas relatively easy—to choose from amongthree lines the line that was equal in lengthto a standard. Students did this alone, orafter 1, 2, 3,4,8, or 16 other people (actuallyexperimental confederates) had first re-sponded. When alone, the students were vir-tually errorless in their judgments. Whenjudging in groups, however, they were faced


with a difficult conflict: On one third of thetrials, the other judges unanimously reportedan obviously incorrect response. The stu-dents were thus forced to choose betweenstating a judgment that contradicted thephysical evidence or one that contradictedthe reported evidence of the other judges.Asch set up a conflict between the physicalimpact of the stimulus situation and the so-cial impact of from 1 to 16 other people.

Overall, Asch found that the students con-formed to the erroneous judgments of themajority on about one third of the criticaltrials. The amount of conformity, further,depended upon the size of the incorrect ma-jority (Figure 2, a). When the majority con-sisted of but one or two individuals, therewas very little conformity. With the additionof a third majority member, conformity in-creased dramatically. Increases in majoritysize beyond three, however, did not result inincreasing amounts of conformity.

Asch's explanation of his data focused onthe Gestalt notion of group consensus: Con-formity results from the perception of agree-ment among group members and not fromthe mere addition of their individual influ-ences. Once this perception has been created,further increases in majority size shouldhave little effect. It appears that at least

three individuals are necessary for the ma-jority to be perceived as consensual.

Social impact theory predicts a clearlydifferent relationship between majority sizeand conformity from the one suggested byAsch's interpretation of his data. The failureto find increases in conformity when major-ity increases in size beyond three poses onlya small problem for the theory, The principleof marginally decreasing impact implies thatthe conformity curve should level off, al-though perhaps not quite so completely.More problematic for social impact theoryis that majorities of one and two had so littleeffect on conformity. One should always ex-pect the first person in a social force field tohave the greatest impact. It may be thatAsch's college students were sufficiently in-dependent, at least with respect to the evi-dence of their own senses, to require a sub-stantial amount of social pressure just tobring them up to a yielding threshold. Theimpact of the first two confederates, then,might have been in reducing restraintsagainst making incorrect judgments.

The missing magic number. Asch's(1951, 1952, 1956) research has led to anumber of attempted replications, the resultsof which have tended to confuse rather thanclarify the relationship between majority

<DE 50

oM—

§ 40

'C 30

"5:E 20L-u

*. 100)

n. <? ---- o ------ IT

•§

1 2 3 4 8 16

Size of incorrect majority

50

§40u

30

8••C 20

0,0I=14N"r's.80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Size of incorrect majority

a. b.

Figure 2. Conformity as a function of number (N) of majority members: (a) data from Asch (1951);(b) data from Gerard, Wilhelmy, & Conolley (1968). (/ = impact.)


size and conformity (Goldberg, 1954; Kidd,1958; Rosenberg, 1961). The failure to finda clear relationship arises in part becausethese replications have inadequately sam-pled the range of group sizes or run an in-sufficient number of subjects to get stableestimates. One exception is a well-executedstudy by Gerard, Wilhelmy, and Conolley(1968). Gerard et al. attempted to replicateAsch's findings with younger subjects, whopresumably had less confidence in their per-ceptual abilities and required less social pres-sure to overcome their resistance to makingcounterf actual judgments. They exposed 154high school students to the erroneous judg-ments of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 confederates.In contrast to Asch, they found that confor-mity continued to increase as majority sizeincreased beyond three, with a simple lineartrend accounting for 61% of the variance inmeans. More importantly, the first few con-federates had the greatest impact. In fact,a power function does even better than astraight line in fitting their data, accountingfor 80% of the variance. This best fittingpower function, calculated from the formula7 = j7V (illustrated in Figure 2, b by thedashed line), finds that conformity equals14NM, implying that a single confederateinduced conformity on 14% of the trials. Aspredicted, the exponent is less than one andshows that conformity grew as the squareroot of majority size.

Social influence by signature. To providefurther evidence on the role of majority size,Latane and Davis (Note 2) conducted a fieldexperiment in which college students wereapproached at various Ohio State Universitycampus locations and asked to sign a four-page questionnaire concerning the adequacyof local newspapers. Each page had onequestion at the top and two columns labeled"Yes" and "No" below, with spaces for 40people to sign their names in each column.The questions concerned the adequacy offoreign and national news coverage, stateand local news coverage, sports coverage,and columns and features. Respondents wereasked to sign their name on each page in thecolumn that best reflected their opinion.

The questionnaires already contained avarying number of signatures at the timethey were distributed. These signatures were

carefully arranged so that 1, 2, 3, 6, or 12signatures appeared in one column and nonein the other, and they were counterbalancedso that they appeared on the "Yes" and"No" sides of each issue an equal numberof times. In order to establish a baseline,conditions were included in which there wereno signatures in either column, or one or sixsignatures in each. Since the Ohio Statecampus is very pleasant in springtime andmany people walk or sit outside with nothingmuch else to do, 1,008 people agreed to com-plete the forms, for a total of 4,032 re-sponses.

Overall, this procedure elicited a high de-gree of conformity. Considering all of thecases in which there was a unanimous ma-jority, 68% of the respondents adopted themajority position. Since 50% would havedone so even in the absence of the previoussignatures (the majority signatures appearedon each side of the issue equally often), wecan infer that 18% of all respondents wereled to conform, or 36% of those who wouldnormally have expressed the opposite opin-ion from that espoused by the majority. Thepresence of only one previous signature led20% of the individuals initially opposed tothe majority position to conform. Thus, thisprocedure elicited conformity of the sameorder of magnitude as that reported by Asch.

The amount of conformity further de-pended upon the size of the unanimous ma-jority (Figure 3). Conformity increased sys-tematically with the number of signaturesup to a majority of 12, and the first signatureon the questionnaire had more effect thanany of the subsequent signatures. Althoughthere may be some slight elevation in con-formity with a consensus of three, the pre-vailing characteristic of the data is their reg-ular, monotonic, negatively acceleratedincrease. The power function / = 24./V38 doesa good job of describing the relationship be-tween majority size and conformity, ac-counting for 88% of the variance. Confor-mity on a questionnaire seems to grow as thecube root of the number of majority signa-tures.

The degree of conformity elicited by thisprocedure is somewhat surprising consider-ing that the majority was represented onlyby the signatures of strangers—people who


were not even present at the time of influ-ence. On the other hand, the issues involvedvalue judgments rather than matters ofphysical reality, and thus the respondents'opinions might have been more susceptibleto change. We might also note the existenceof consistent sex differences in conformity(Wolf & Latan6,1981). Persons with femalenames were more influenced (42%) than per-sons with male names (30%). There werealso sex differences with regard to specificissues—both sexes had similar views withrespect to the adequacy of foreign and na-tional, and state and local, news coverage;but females were much more satisfied withthe number of columns and features and, nottoo surprisingly, with the adequacy of sportscoverage. However, these differences in orig-inal attitude did not affect conformity, andsex did not interact with the majority sizeeffect.

The results of this study, coupled withthose from Gerard et al. (1968), challengeAsch's conclusion that conformity is essen-tially unrelated to majority size both by theirdemonstration of systematic increases inconformity with increases in majority sizebeyond three and by the significant amountsof conformity obtained with majorities ofone and two. More precisely, they suggestthat conformity is related to majority sizeby a power function, with each additional

majority member producing a smaller incre-ment in conformity than the previous mem-ber. Taken together, they provide strong sup-port for a social impact theory analysis ofthe majority influence process.

Minority Influence

In the situations just described, the socialforces acting on the target were unidirec-tional, each influence source contributing tothe total pressure on the target to adopt themajority position. In other social situations,when influence sources are not unanimouswith respect to the positions they advocate,the forces impinging on the target may pullhim in different directions. Consider, for ex-ample, the situation of an individual who isthe target of influence by others who aredivided on the issue in question. The forceexerted by the larger faction will pull thetarget toward the majority position, whereasthe force of the smaller faction will pull thetarget toward the minority. According tosocial impact theory, the magnitude of eachforce will be a multiplicative function ofthe strength, immediacy, and number ofsubgroup members; and the resultant forceon the target will be a simple function of thedifference in impact imparted by each. Allelse being equal, conformity to the majorityposition should increase as a power function

t>-

11Z J2o o

a. .

60

40

20

o9X

P

•<5'I=24N-38

r'=.88

0 1 2 3 6 1 2

Number of majority signatures

Figure 3. Conformity on a questionnaire as a function of number (N) of majority signatures. (/ = impact.Figure from Latane & Davis, Note 2.)


of majority size and decrease as a powerfunction of minority size.

Asch and the magic number one. In ad-dition to his research with unanimous ma-jorities, Asch (1952) conducted several stud-ies of minority dissent. In the first study, hesimply introduced a "partner" who re-sponded correctly on the critical trials. Thepresence of the partner reduced conformityfrom 33% to 13%. Asch suggested two fac-tors that might operate when a dissenter ispresent: (a) presence of social support or(b) lack of consensus. If social support werethe critical factor, the dissenter would haveto agree with the subject, but if breakingconsensus were the important factor, thedissenter could be even more incorrect thanthe majority. To help choose between thesefactors, Asch introduced dissenters who ei-ther answered between the majority estimateand the correct response or who were evenmore extremely incorrect than the majority.In both cases, conformity was greatly re-duced, although not eliminated.

From these results, Asch concluded thatthe breaking of consensus was the major fac-tor responsible for conformity reduction inthe presence of a dissenter. Asch essentiallyviews the group as a dynamic whole, themajority and the minority being part of thetotal configuration. Consensus is a propertyof the group as an entity, and once it is bro-ken, additional minority members shouldcause no further decrease in conformity.This general conclusion has received onlypartial support from the study by Allen andLevine (1969) and from the studies reviewedby Allen (1975).

Rather than viewing the group as a whole,social impact theory views the majority andthe minority as separate sources of influence.Holding majority size constant, increases inthe size of an opposing minority should resultin decreasing amounts of conformity to themajority position, with the largest decre-ments in conformity being associated withthe introduction of the first few minoritymembers.

The missing magic number. Only onestudy in the minority influence tradition hasinvestigated parametric variations in minor-ity size. Nemeth, Wachtler, and Endicott(1977) brought six naive individuals to-

gether with one, two, three, or four confed-erates to make a series of perceptual judg-ments. Their task was to indicate the colorof slides, all of which were objectively blue.The confederates unanimously labeled eachslide as "blue-green." The results showedthat the number of "blue-green" responsesgiven by the naive participants was signifi-cantly higher in all four experimental con-ditions than in a control condition composedentirely of naive people. A minority of threewas found to be significantly more influen-tial than minorities of one or two, but aminority of four did not differ significantlyfrom the others. Although Nemeth et al.report that the only significant componentof the minority size effect was linear, ourreanalysis of their data shows that a powerfunction with an exponent of .5 achieves aslightly better fit.

Unfortunately, a methodological featureof this experiment makes it impossible toobtain a precise estimate of the minority sizeeffect. All of the responses were made pub-licly, and each time a naive participant con-formed to the minority position, the majorityto minority size ratio changed. In a group ofsix naive participants and four confederates,for example, the first person to agree withthe minority position obscures the majority-minority distinction. The value of their con-clusions with respect to minority size, there-fore, is limited.

Minorities make a minor impression. Amore precise investigation of the effect ofminority size was conducted by Davis andLatane (Note 3) in the context of a studyon social influence and person perception.Employing a procedure used in the study ofimpression formation, they asked partici-pants to integrate information from severalsources in order to form a coherent impres-sion of another person. Each of up to 24different persons who knew the target persongave a one-word trait description, either pos-itive or negative, and participants were askedto report how much they would expect tolike the person described on a scale from-100 to +100. Each respondent rated 216different target persons described by from0 to 24 different people, with a combinationof 0 to 12 extremely positive and 0 to 12extremely negative adjectives listed on a sin-


gle page. Thirty-six positive and 36 negativetrait adjectives selected from a prescaled listwere arranged so that each of the 36 possiblecombinations of 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 positiveand 0, 1,2,4, 8, and 12 negative descriptionsoccurred six times in random order.

Overall, participants tended to be slightlyfavorable toward the target persons, evenwhen they had no information about them.As expected, their initial impression wassubstantially affected by the informationthey were given, becoming more favorablethe more people gave positive descriptionsand less favorable the more people gave neg-ative descriptions. The positive and negativedescriptions were equally influential, al-though their effects were in opposite direc-tions.

Considering those cases in which peoplegave either all positive or all negative de-scriptions, the change in favorability ratingsfrom a no-influence baseline increased sys-tematically with the number of trait descrip-tions. Additionally, the first few descriptionshad the greatest impact (Figure 4). Thepower function / = 22NA9 accounts for animpressive 99% of the variance in means,implying that the first person giving a de-scription had an average effect of 22 per-centage points and that impact grew as thesquare root of the number of people givingdescriptions.

In those cases in which participants wereexposed to both positive and negative influ-ences at the same time, it appears as if theysimply subtracted the lesser influence fromthe greater to form their resultant impres-sion. More precisely, Figure 5 shows thatwhen the number of negative descriptionswas held constant, an increase in the numberof people giving positive descriptions led tovery regular increases in the favorability ofthe final impression. Further, the increasein the elevation of the curves appears to leveloff with the addition of the fourth positiveperson, suggesting that the first few positivedescriptions had the greatest impact. Simi-larly, holding the number of positive descrip-tions constant, an increase in the number ofpeople giving negative descriptions led tosystematic decreases in the favorability ofthe impression. The figure shows that eachincrement in the number of negative descrip-

Q.

E

"oX

80

60

5 4015oo

Ior 20

I=22N 4'

r2=.99

.

O Positive~ characteristics

A _ Negativecharacteristics

1 2 4 8 1 2

Number of characterizations

Figure 4. Change in favorability of impression as a func-tion of number (N) of unanimous descriptions.(7 = impact. Figure from Davis & Latane, Note 3.)

tions results in a slightly lower parallel curveand further, that the distance between thecurves grows smaller with increasing num-bers of negative descriptions. As in the caseof the positive descriptions, then, the firstfew people giving negative descriptions hadthe greatest impact. Although some of the36 data points deviate from the best fittingpower functions, these deviations do not ap-pear to be systematic and probably representrandom variability. The data do show thatwhereas majorities make a major impres-sion, minorities have a minor but noticeableimpact.

The results of these last two studies sug-gest that minority influence is a positive,although negatively accelerated, function ofminority size. Holding majority size con-stant, increases in the size of an opposingminority appear to result in decreasingamounts of conformity to the majority po-sition, with the largest decrements in con-formity being associated with the introduc-tion of the first few minority members.

Multiplication Versus Division of Impact

In the situations considered so far, the tar-get individual has been presumed to hold no


O- Number of negativedescriptions

0 1 2 4 8 1 2

Number of positive descriptions

Figure 5. Favorability of impression as a function ofnumber of positive and negative descriptions. (Davis& Latan6, Note 3.)

initial attitude on the issue in question (i.e.,has been a member of neither the majoritynor the minority). There is another way toview the social influence situation, and thatis to assume that this individual is a memberof either the majority or the minority andis the target of forces coming from the otherfaction.

Social impact theory defines two types ofsocial situations that result in different kindsof social force fields. In the first situation,an individual is the target of social forcesemanating from other people. It has beenproposed that the impact he experiences willbe a multiplicative function of the numberof people present and the amount of impactgenerated by each. In the experimental sit-uations described, the subject has been pre-sumed to be in such a multiplicative forcefield.

In the second situation, an individualstands with others as the target of a socialforce coming from outside the group. He isin a different kind of force field, as illus-trated in Figure 6. In this situation, impactwill be diffused or divided among the group

members, with each individual feeling lessimpact than he would if he were alone. Asthe strength, immediacy, or number of othergroup members increases, the impact of anexternal source on any individual will de-crease, so that in this case, /=/( 1 /SIN). Asin the case of a multiplicative force field, therelationship between the number of peoplein the group and the resultant impact on anindividual group member should be a powerfunction, with each additional group mem-ber producing a smaller decrease in impactthan the previous one. In this case / =sN~', reflecting the divisive nature of theforce field.

It may be noted that both types of forcefields may be operative in a given situation.For example, an individual may be a mem-ber of one group that is the target of forcescoming from another group. In this situa-tion, the impact experienced by that indi-vidual should be a direct function of thestrength, immediacy, and number of peoplein the opposing group and an inverse func-tion of the strength, immediacy, and numberof people in his own group; that is, / =f(SINopposing group /SIN own group).

Thus, if we assume an initial attitude onthe part of an individual target consistentwith that of either the majority or the mi-nority, this individual will be in both a mul-

SOURCE

Figure 6. Division of impact: / = f(l/SlN). (Figurefrom "Psychology of Social Impact" by Bibb Latane,American Psychologist, 1981, 36, 343-356. Copyright1981 by the American Psychological Association. Re-printed by permission.)


tiplicative and a divisive force field. This sug-gests that he will be affected by others in hisown subgroup, as well as by those in theother subgroup, and that each subgroup willhave an effect upon the other. From thisperspective, majority and minority influencemay be viewed as simultaneous and recip-rocal.

A General Model of Social Influence

A general model of social influence pro-cesses may be described by the social forcefield represented in Figure 7. For the pur-poses of illustration, let us assume that thisforce field represents members of a groupwho are discussing a relevant issue and thattwo positions on the issue may be readilyidentified, one advocated by a majority ofthe group members and the other advocatedby a minority. Let us assume further thatone or more group members belong to nei-ther the majority nor the minority and maybe classified, at least initially, as independent(e.g., newcomers to the group, group mem-bers whose initial attitude on the issue inquestion is neutral). This force field, then,is comprised of three units: majority mem-bers (M), minority members (m), and in-dependents (I). In the example depicted inFigure 7, a single individual holding inde-pendent status is confronted by a majorityof five and a minority of two.

As illustrated by the arrows connectingthese units one to another, each unit is apotential source of influence for the othertwo, as well as a potential recipient of influ-ence from the other two. The magnitude ofthe influence pressure that each unit exertson the others will be a function of thestrength, immediacy, and number of indi-viduals in that subgroup. Additionally, as thesize of any subgroup increases, the principleof marginally decreasing impact suggeststhat the additional influence pressure gen-erated by each new member will be less thanthat of the previous member.

Furthermore, the people in each unit maybe affected by others in that unit as well asby those in other units. This possibility isrepresented in Figure 7 by the arrow indi-cating the reciprocal impact of the two mi-nority members. The impact an individual

Minority

IndependentsFigure 7. A generalized social force field. (M = majoritymembers, m = minority members, and I = independents.(Adapted from "Social impact theory and group influ-ence" by B. Latan6 and S. Nida. In P. Paulus (Ed.),Psychology of Group Influence, Erlbaum, 1980. Re-printed by permission.)

experiences from others in his own unit maybe in the form of a direct influence attempt.For example, influence by a subgroup maylead to the acceptance of new argumentssupporting its position on the issue or to apolarization of the subgroup's opinion.

Alternatively, the impact an individualexperiences from others in his own unit maybe indirect, in the form of a diffusion of im-pact by the other units. That is, influencepressure from others will be divided amongthe subgroup members, so that each individ-ual member will feel less pressure than hewould if he were alone. The ability of asubgroup to influence its own members—orto diffuse or resist influence pressure fromoutside—will be a function of the strength,immediacy, and number of its members.

It should be noted that this is only oneexample of a generalized social force field.The field may consist of only two units, aswhen every group member belongs to eitherthe majority or the minority, or, more fa-miliarly, when there is no minority positionrepresented (e.g., when an individual targetconfronts a unanimous majority). In thiscase, the force attributable to the missingunit will be zero. Similarly, the field may becomprised of more than three units, as when


multiple positions on an issue are plausible.In the case of group members discussing arelevant issue, in fact, the number of unitsin the force field will correspond preciselyto the number of discrete positions advocatedby the group members.

It may be noted parenthetically that Fig-ure 7 depicts the social force field operatingin an experiment by Moscovici, Lage, andNaffrechoux (1969). In that study, each na-ive subject was brought together with fiveother subjects and two confederates to makejudgments concerning the color of each ofa series of blue slides. There are two waysto view this situation from the perspectiveof the subject, depending upon the confi-dence with which he holds the majority po-sition and his perceived relationship to theother naive subjects. In one case, the subjectmay view himself as independent and as thelone target of forces generated by the othergroup members (he would be represented inFigure 7 by the single I). From this per-spective, the other naive subjects who cor-rectly label the slides as "blue" constitutea majority, whereas the confederates wholabel the slides as "green" constitute a mi-nority. The total impact experienced by thesubject in this case should be a function ofthe majority's impact minus that of the mi-nority. In the second case, the subject mayview himself as a member of the majorityand as the target of forces coming from theminority (he would be represented in Figure7 by a sixth M and the force attributable tothe subgroup of independents would bezero). In this case, the total influence pres-sure experienced by the subject should be afunction of the minority's impact divided bythat of the majority.

Scope of the model. While social impacttheory offers a broad and descriptive, yetprecise and testable, model of social influ-ence, the model does not specify when orwhere social influence will occur, nor doesit detail the exact processes by which socialinfluence is transmitted (Latane, 1981).Rather, it provides general rules that deter-mine the magnitude of influence when it doesoccur and is most useful when combined withspecific theories relevant to each area of ap-plication.

Social impact theory focuses on variables

affecting the strength, immediacy, and num-ber of sources and targets of influence, anddoes not itself predict the effect of variablesinvolving the judgmental issue (e.g., stimu-lus ambiguity, task difficulty, opinion rele-vance, etc.) nor those concerning the per-suasive message (e.g., opinion discrepancy,primacy and recency effects, one-sided vs.two-sided arguments, fear appeals, etc.).Kelman (1958) has suggested that influencecan best be understood in terms of threedistinct psychological processes—compli-ance, identification, and internalization—which differ with respect to their antecedentconditions and behavioral consequences.Similarly, Moscovici (Moscovici, 1980;Moscovici & Lage, 1976; Moscovici & Per-sonnaz, 1980) has distinguished manifestfrom latent (i.e., a change in the cognitive-perceptual code underlying an overt re-sponse) influence and has proposed thatwhile majorities produce the former, minor-ities produce the latter. This proposition,however, has not been supported by recentevidence (Doms & Van Avermaet, 1980;Sorrentino, King, & Leo, 1980). Social im-pact theory does not make differential pre-dictions for these mechanisms or processes,nor does it specify when the public or overtexpression of an opinion will become privateor internalized.

Conclusions

Social Influence as a Unitary Concept

The present analysis suggests that minor-ity influence is governed by the same prin-ciples and mediated by the same variablesas majority influence, the difference betweenthe two sources of influence being purelyquantitative.

The theoretical advantage of viewing ma-jority and minority influence as instances ofa general influence process is both parsimonyand the ability to account for a wide rangeof influence phenomena. More importantly,however, this formulation considers the in-dividual and the group as adaptive socialagents. An individual may change his mind,move from one position on an issue to an-other, without having to engage in a newpsychological process and without disrupting


the ongoing influence process in the group.Further, neither the majority nor the mi-nority is viewed as the passive recipient ofsocial forces from the other faction. What-ever position an individual assumes with re-spect to a given issue, he will be an activeparticipant in the influence process. Fromthis perspective, the influence of majoritiesand minorities is simultaneous and re-ciprocal.

Finally, the present formulation views so-cial influence as only one example of thewide variety of effects that the presence oractions of other people have on a target per-son. By analyzing the influence situation interms of a social force field, social impacttheory helps to integrate research on socialinfluence with the vast body of research onother social phenomena such as bystanderintervention, responses to crowding, produc-tivity in groups, and so forth.

Relationship of Social Impact Theory toPrevious Models

Previous models of social influence havebeen concerned primarily with conformityor innovation, but not both. Two models ofsocial influence have been reviewed, each ofwhich accounts for a portion of influencephenomena. Our purpose in the present ar-ticle has not been to suggest that eithermodel is inaccurate with respect to the typeof influence it purports to explain. Rather,we have proposed a general framework bywhich to understand the influence of bothmajorities and minorities, which integratesprevious theoretical formulations and em-pirical findings. Thus, while there are somepoints of disagreement, social impact theoryhas much in common with each of these ear-lier models.

Dependence models. In contrast to pre-vious conceptions of majority influence, so-cial impact theory suggests that influencemay occur in the absence of an explicit de-pendence relationship between the targetand source. The simple presence of an in-dividual in a social force field insures thathe will be affected, at least to some extent,by every other individual in that field andthat he will simultaneously have some effect

upon each of them. Thus, we agree withMoscovici (1976) that single individuals andrelatively powerless minorities must inevi-tably have some influence.

Variables that have traditionally been thefocus of dependence models—such as ma-jority si/e, status, and power—however, areat the very heart of social impact theory.Attractiveness, expertise, control over re-sources, and so on are strength variables inthe present formulation; and variations intheir magnitude should lead to correspond-ing changes in impact. Further, since strengthis multiplicatively related to the number ofinfluence sources and majorities are by def-inition more numerous, these changes shouldbe more pronounced when the source of in-fluence is a majority than when it is a mi-nority. It is not surprising, therefore, thatresearch on majority influence has empha-sized the role of these variables.

Some properties of the group as an entitymay also be viewed as strength variables.Consider, for example, the role that groupcohesiveness might play in the generalizedsocial force field described earlier. As thecohesiveness of the group as a whole in-creases, the ability of any subgroup to influ-ence members of another subgroup shouldincrease. Similarly, as the cohesiveness of agiven subgroup increases, the ability of thatsubgroup to influence its own members, orto resist influence pressure from othersubgroups, should increase as well (Back,1951; Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950).

Social influence is only one of a numberof possible reactions to disagreement ofopinion in groups; others include commu-nication, changes in affect, overt hostility,and rejection (Levine, 1980). In fact, studiesby Schachter (1951) and Emerson (1954)have demonstrated a tendency for groups toreject a consistent deviate, especially underconditions of high group cohesiveness. In thepresent formulation, rejection of the minor-ity may be viewed as an active attempt toremove the minority from the social forcefield and thus as a potential source of influ-ence (cf. Wolf, 1979). Issues such as whatconstitutes the psychological boundary of agroup (Festinger, 1950) and how others arechosen for the purposes of social comparison


(Festinger, 1954) appear to relate to themore general problem of how the area of asocial force field is determined.

Finally, the present analysis suggests thatwhenever a majority and a minority are si-multaneously present and of comparablestrength (i.e., the minority does not possessspecial resources or power), the majority willhave greater impact than the minority. Inthe absence of constraints from externalreality, a group consensus that results frominteraction between the majority and mi-nority will remain on the majority side ofthe issue, although it should be less extremethan it would be if there were no minorityposition advocated.

Moscovici's model. Consistent withMoscovici's analysis of minority influence,social impact theory views individuals andminorities as potential sources, as well asrecipients, of influence pressure. In contrastto Moscovici, however, the present formu-lation suggests that their impact will be pro-portional to their strength, immediacy, andnumber. It will be neither excessive nor rel-atively greater than that of a majority.

It is possible that a single individual mayappear to exert disproportionate influence asa result of the power function relating influ-ence to the number of influence sources. Thefirst person in a social force field should al-ways have the greatest impact. As minoritysize increases, additional minority membersshould have a marginally decreasing effect.It is also possible, although not well docu-mented, that a minority may derive somestrength from its deviant status. Nemeth etal. (1977) have suggested that minority sizemay be inversely related to attributions ofconfidence and commitment that, as signsof strength, may increase influence. Thisanalysis suggests a trade-off as minority sizedecreases, the minority gaining in strengthwhat it loses in numbers. Because of themultiplicative relationship between numberand strength, however, the attributional ad-vantages would have to be substantial tooffset a decrease in minority size.

Much research has focused on the behav-ioral style of the minority. Consistent withthis line of research, social impact theorysuggests that greater strength or immediacy

are necessary components of successful in-novation by a numerically disadvantagedminority. Behavioral style may in fact be theonly means by which a powerless minoritycan increase its strength sufficiently to havea noticeable impact. It is not surprising,therefore, that research on minority influ-ence has emphasized the role of this variable.

But Minorities Have Changed the World

While history is replete with examples ofelite minorities who have commanded andmanipulated the masses through the use ofpolitical, economic, and military might, thepresent formulation suggests minoritieslacking such resources will have a modestimpact at best. When the majority and theminority are of comparable strength and im-mediacy, minority impact will be manifestedprimarily as a reduction in conformity to themajority. From this perspective, it would bedifficult to account for conversion to theminority position or for fundamental changesin the status quo. As Moscovici has clearlypointed out, however, there are many ex-amples, past and present, of individuals andsmall minorities who, although lacking pres-tige and power, have seemingly changed theworld by convincing large majorities of theirviews. Innovation and social change are factsof history, and it would seem that they mustrepresent an exception to the law of majorityrule and thus to the predictions of social im-pact theory.

We would argue that the apparent abilityof a minority to produce conversion, or acomplete abdication of the majority position,under certain circumstances actually derivesfrom the pervasive influence of the majority.Often social influence processes are suffi-ciently powerful that members of the ma-jority keep each other from noticing fun-damental changes in the underlying structureof affairs. In the face of changing times andconditions, majorities continue to convinceeach other of truths of the past, whereasminority positions may be fresher, more el-egant or realistic than those of the outmodedmajority. The insistent behavior of the mi-nority thus forces the majority to attend tothe discrepancy between its position and the


current state of the world, creating the con-ditions for a profound and often rapidchange in the status quo. Thus, the minoritymay serve mainly as a trigger to create anexplosive release from the powerful confor-mity pressures exerted by the majority,rather than as a direct source of influence(cf. Wheeler's 1966 discussion of behavioralcontagion as resulting from disinhibition).We suggest that opinion conversion takesplace only when the minority position is in-herently and demonstrably more correctthan that of the majority. Like the child whofirst remarked on the Emperor's lack ofclothes, non-elite minorities may be effectivemainly when majorities have blinded them-selves to naked reality. If the Emperor werein fact dressed, the child would, of course,be ignored.

Reference Notes1. Doms, M. Moscovici's innovation effect: Towards

an integration with the conformity effect. Paper pre-sented at the International Congress of Psychology,Leipzig, East Germany, 1980.

2. Latane, B., & Davis, D. Social impact and the effectof majority influence on attitudes toward news me-dia. Unpublished manuscript, 1974.

3. Davis, D., & Latane, B. Minority vs. majority in-fluence and impression formation. Unpublishedmanuscript, 1974.

ReferencesAllen, V. L. Situational factors in conformity. In L.

Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press,1965.

Allen, V. L. Social support for nonconformity. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press,1975.

Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. Consensus and conformity.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969,5, 389-399.

Asch, S. E. Effects of group pressure upon the modi-fication and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow(Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, Pa.:Carnegie Press, 1951.

Asch, S. E. Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall, 1952.

Asch, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: Aminority of one against a unanimous majority. Psy-chological Monographs, 1956, 70(9, Whole No. 416).

Back, K. Influence through social communication. Jour-nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46,9-23.

Darley, J. M., & Darley, S. A. Conformity and devia-tion. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson

(Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology.Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. A study of normativeand informational social influences upon individualjudgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, 1955, 5/, 629-636.

Doms, M., & Van Avermaet, E. Majority influence,minority influence and conversion behavior: A repli-cation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,1980, 16, 283-292.

Emerson, R. M. Deviation and rejection: An experi-mental replication. American Sociological Review,1954, 19, 688-694.

Festinger, L. Informal social communication. Psycho-logical Review, 1950, 57, 271-282.

Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relations, 1954, 7, 117-140.

Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. Social pres-sures in informal groups: A study of human factorsin housing. New York: Harper, 1950.

Gerard, H. B., Wilhelmy, R. A., & Conolley, E. S.Conformity and group size. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 79-82.

Goldberg, S. E. Three situational determinants of con-formity to social norms. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1954, 49, 325-329.

Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. Foundations of socialpsychology. New York: Wiley, 1967.

Kelman, H. C. Compliance, identification, and inter-nalization: Three processes of attitude change. Jour-nal of Conflict Resolution, 1958, 2, 51-60.

Kidd, J. S. Social influence phenomena in a task-ori-ented group situation. Journal of Abnormal and So-cial Psychology, 1958, 56, 13-17.

Kiesler, C. A., & Kiesler, S. B. Conformity. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Latane, B. Psychology of social impact. American Psy-chologist, 1981, 36, 343-356.

Latane, B., & Nida, S. Social impact theory and groupinfluence: A social engineering perspective. In P. B.Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence. Hills-dale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Levine, J. M. Reaction to opinion deviance in smallgroups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of groupinfluence. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.

Moscovici, S. Social influence and social change. Lon-don: Academic Press, 1976.

Moscovici, S. Toward a theory of conversion behavior.In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental so-cial psychology (Vol. 13). New York: AcademicPress, 1980.

Moscovici, S., & Faucheux, C. Social influence, con-formity bias, and the study of active minorities. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol. 6). New York: Academic Press,1972.

Moscovici, S., & Lage, E. Studies in social influenceIII: Majority versus minority influence in a group.European Journal of Social Psychology, 1976, 6,149-174.

Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. Influenceof a consistent minority on the responses of a majorityin a color perception task. Sociometry, 1969, 32, 365-379.


Moscovici, S., & Nemeth, C. Social influence II: Mi-nority influence. In C. Nemeth (Ed.), Social psy-chology: Classic and contemporary integrations. Chi-cago: Rand McNally, 1974.

Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B. Studies in social influ-ence V: Minority influence and conversion behaviorin a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 1980, 16, 270-282.

Nemeth, C., Swedlund, M., & Kanki, B. Patterning ofthe minority's responses and their influence on themajority. European Journal of Social Psychology,1974,4, 53-65.

Nemeth, C., Wachtler, J., & Endicott, J. Increasing thesize of the minority: Some gains and some losses.European Journal of Social Psychology, 1977, 7,15-27.

Rosenberg, L. A. Group size, prior experience, and con-formity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-ogy, 1961,65,436-437.

Schachter, S. Deviation, rejection, and communication.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951,46, 190-207.

Sorrentino, R. M., King, G., & Leo, G. The influenceof the minority on perception: A note on a possiblealternative explanation. Journal of Experimental So-cial Psychology, 1980, 16, 293-301.

Stevens, S. S. Psychophysics: Introduction to its per-ceptual and social prospects. New York: Wiley, 1975.

Wheeler, L. Toward a theory of behavioral contagion.Psychological Review, 1966, 73, 179-192.

Wolf, S. Behavioral style and group cohesiveness assources of minority influence. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 1979, 9, 381-395.

Wolf, S., & Latane, B. If laboratory research doesn'tsquare with you, then Qube it: The potential of in-teractive TV for social psychological research. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1981, 7,344-352.

Received August 19, 1980Revision received April 22, 1981 •

Hoffman Appointed Editor, 1983-1988

The Publications and Communications Board of the AmericanPsychological Association announces the appointment of MartinL. Hoffman, University of Michigan, as Editor of PsychologicalReview for a six-year term beginning in 1983. As of January 1,1982, manuscripts should be directed to:

Martin L. HoffmanEditor, Psychological ReviewDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Michigan3433 Mason HallAnn Arbor, Michigan 48109

Manuscript submission patterns on Psychological Review makethe precise date of completion of the 1982 volume uncertain. There-fore, authors should note that although the current editor, WilliamK. Estes, will receive and consider manuscripts through December31, 1981, should the 1982 volume be completed before that date,Estes will redirect manuscripts to Hoffman for consideration forthe 1983 volume.

the social impact of majorities and minorities · pdf filemajorities and minorities 439 the...

Documents