Studies in self‐categorization and minority conversion: Is being a member of the out‐group an advantage?

The finding that minorities may tend to produce conversion whereas majorities may tend to produce compliance is an extremely important one for the study of social influence. Most research into minority conversion has been based on conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980) which, we would claim, rests on the notion that the ‘true’ influence exerted by minorities is possible only because they are essentially different from self. This paper reports two studies in a programme of research testing an alternative explanation, based on self‐categorization theory, which assumes that perceived similarity to a potential source of influence will be the key to its deep and lasting success. Both studies employ a full majority/minority X in‐group/out‐group design, socially significant real‐life in‐group–out‐group memberships and measure attitudes directly relevant to these social identities. Study 1 uses immediate and delayed and Study 2, public and private, responses as the measures of, respectively, compliance and conversion. The results support self‐categorization theory in that, when exposed to both majority and minority out‐group sources, subjects exhibited an immediate/public polarization away from the sources, towards a more extreme in‐group position, and there was no diminution of the extremity of their position on delayed/private measures. The classic pattern of majorities bringing about greater compliance than conversion and minorities greater conversion than compliance was evinced in the in‐group conditions of both studies, although this tended to be comparative rather than absolute. The implications of the results for the conflict between self‐categorization theory and conversion theory are discussed and the future direction of our research indicated.