Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T21:33:17.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Prominority policies and cultural change: A dilemma for minorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Angelica Mucchi-Faina
Edited by
Fabrizio Butera  and
John M. Levine
Fabrizio Butera
Affiliation:
Université de Lausanne, Switzerland
John M. Levine
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access

Summary

According to the minority influence theory (Moscovici 1976, 1980), determined and persistent minorities can start social change. To reach this goal, minorities have to obtain visibility and be capable of conflict with the majority, consistently affirming their rights, opinions, and diversity. Differentiation and opposition allow the minority to achieve both external visibility and internal cohesion. At this stage, minorities need to display courage and determination, denouncing status disadvantage that was previously hidden or considered normal. By means of a consistent behavioral style, minorities obtain respect and acknowledgment, produce the defreezing of previous beliefs and social representations, and start a new way of thinking, which, in turn, leads to cultural and social change. Evidence supporting this theory has been obtained not only in the laboratory (for a review, Moscovici, Mucchi-Faina, & Maass, 1994) but also through the observation of successful social movements (e.g., Mucchi-Faina, 1987). In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, many social and ethnic minorities consistently challenged their traditional marginal role and protested against their condition of social segregation. Minorities, in those years, not only demanded equal treatment and opportunities, but also affirmed the importance of diversity. These conflicts led to a new and widespread consideration of the needs of underprivileged groups and categories and induced the authorities to formulate social policies, norms, and recommendations aimed at reducing the unfair treatment of minorities. In addition, they activated a cultural change and a process of social transformation.

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Coping with Minority Status
Responses to Exclusion and Inclusion
 , pp. 293 - 310
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N. J., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In Berkowitz, L. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher standards for devaluated groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. P., Charnsangavej, T., Keough, K. A., Newman, M. L., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2000). Putting the “affirms” into affirmative action: Preferential selection and academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 736–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabrò, A. R., & Grasso, L. (1983). Dal movimento femminista al femminismo diffuso. Milano: Angeli.Google Scholar
Crespi, F., & Mucchi-Faina, A. (Eds.). (1988). Le strategie delle minoranze attive. Napoli: Liguori.
Crosby, F. J. (1994). Understanding affirmative actions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 13–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. J. (1998). Evaluation of affirmative action applicants: Perceived fairness, human capital or social identity? Gender Roles, 38, 933–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1994). Affirmative action in theory and practice: Issues of power, ambiguity and gender versus race. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esses, M. V., & Seligman, C. (1996). The individual-group distinction in assessments of strategies to reduce prejudice and discrimination. The case of affirmative action. In Sorrentino, R. M. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context, Vol. 3. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What's so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In Oskamp, S. & Costanzo, M. (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Foschi, M., Lai, L., & Sigerson, K. (1994). Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, M. E., & Alcott, V. B. (2001). What I think you think of me: Women's reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 574–582.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee, R. A. (1998). Type of affirmative action policy: A determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection?Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 190–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A.(1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative actions efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Stathatos, P. (1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 603–625.Google Scholar
Heilman, M. E., Kaplow, S. R., Amato, M. G., & Stathatos, P. (1993). When similarity is a liability: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on reactions to like-sex and different-sex others. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 917–927.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilman, M. E., Lucas, J. A., & Kaplow, S. R. (1990). Self-derogating consequences of sex-based preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 202–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W. F., & Gilbert, D.(1996). The other side of affirmative action: Reactions of nonbeneficiaries to sex-based preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 346–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P.(1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed?: Impact of sex-based selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E. E., Davis, K. E., & Gergen, K. J.(1961). Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 302–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kravitz, D. A., Harrison, D. A., Turner, M. E., Levine, E. L., Chaves, W., Brannick, M. T., et al. (1997). Society for Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Retrieved December 12, 2000, from http://www.siop.org/AfirmAct/siopsaartoc.html
Levine, J. M., & Kaarbo, J. (2001). Minority influence in political decision-making groups. In Dreu, C. K. W. & Vries, N. K. (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Innovation and socialization in small groups. In Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Avermaet, E. (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A., & Fazio, R. H. (1996). Women as men and people: Effects of gender-marked language, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1004–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. R., & Gavanski, I. (1994). Women as men and people: Occupation titles suffixes as primes. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (1998). The social consequences of affirmative actions: Deleterious effects on perceptions of groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1), 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, B., Feinstein, J., & Crocker, J. (1994). Attributional ambiguity of affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 113–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social Influence and social change. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 209–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Maass, A. (Eds.). (1994). Minority influence. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Mucchi-Faina, A. (1987). Mouvements sociales et conversion. In Moscovici, S. & Mugny, G. (Eds.), Psychologie de la conversion. Cousset: Delval.Google Scholar
Mucchi-Faina, A., & Barro, M. (2006). Il caso di “professoressa”: Espressioni marcate per genere e persuasione. Psicologia sociale, 3, 517–530.Google Scholar
Mucchi-Faina, A. (2005). Visible or influential? Language reforms and gender (in)equality. Social Science Information, 44, 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nacoste, R. W. (1989). Affirmative action and self-evaluation. In Blanchard, F. A. & Crosby, F. J. (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentice, D. A. (1994) Do language reforms change our way of thinking?Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatini, A. (1986). Raccomandazioni per un uso non sessista della lingua italiana. Roma: Commissione nazionale per la realizzazione della parità tra uomo e donna, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions in the face of discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 493–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stahlberg, D., Sczesny, S., & Braun, F. (2001) Name your favorite musician: Effects of masculine generics and their alternatives in German. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20, 464–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. E., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson.Google Scholar
Taylor-Carter, M. A., Doverspike, D., & Cook, K. (1995). Understanding resistance to gender and race-based affirmative-action: A review of research findings. Human Resource Management Review, 5, 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truax, K., Cordova, D. I., Wood, A., Wright, E., & Crosby, F. (1998). Undermined? Affirmative action from the targets' point of view. In Swim, J. K. & Stangor, C. (Eds.), Prejudice: The target's perspective (pp. 172–185). New York:Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1993). Effects of preferential and meritorious selection on performance: An examination of intuitive and self-handicapping perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Affirmative action as help: A review of recipient reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 43–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., & Hardaway, T. (1991). Gender differences in reactions to preferential selection: Towards a model of preferential selection as help. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 797–814.Google Scholar
Worchel, S., Grossman, M., & Coutant, D. (1994). Minority influence in the group context: How group factors affect when the minority will be influential. In Moscovici, S., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Maass, A. (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 97–114). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Wilson, E., & Ng, S. H. (1988) Sex bias in visual images evoked by generics: A New Zealand study. Sex Roles, 18, 159–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×