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-5b777bbd6c-6lqsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-22T16:18:24.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Influence without credit: How successful minorities respond to social cryptomnesia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Fabrizio Butera ,
John M. Levine  and
Jean-Pierre Vernet
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

In October 2007, the Nobel Committee awarded its Peace Prize jointly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the American politician Al Gore “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change” (Nobel Foundation, 2008). This award represented the first unambiguous statement by the Committee of the importance of defending the environment. True, the 2004 Peace Prize given to Wangari Maathai mentioned her contributions to sustainable development, but the primary criterion for the award was her work on behalf of “democracy, human rights and women's rights in particular” (Nobel Foundation, 2008). Thus, the 2007 award can be considered a milestone in the decades-old struggle to bring attention to the harmful effects of human activities on the environment, a recognition that environmentalists have been waiting for a long time.

Or can it? Are the ecology activists who have fought for the preservation of the environment for decades – by joining the words “green” and “peace”, by demonstrating in the streets, by chaining themselves to gates, by spending time in jail – pleased with the 2007 award? Do they feel happy with this highly visible recognition of the cause for which they have so long fought? Or do they feel bitter disappointment that the prize was awarded, not to one or more of their organizations, but instead to two relative newcomers to the cause – an intergovernmental panel and a professional politician?

Type
Chapter
Information
Coping with Minority Status
Responses to Exclusion and Inclusion
 , pp. 311 - 332
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

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In Guetzkow, H. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.Google Scholar
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Butera, F., Mugny, G., Legrenzi, P., & Pérez, J. A. (1996). Majority and minority influence, task representation and inductive reasoning. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crano, W. D., & Prislin, R. (2006). Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 345–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crespi, F., & Mucchi-Faina, A. (1988). Le strategie delle minoranze attive. [Strategies of active minorities]. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
Dreu, C. K. W., & Vries, N. K. (Eds.). (2001). Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. A. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emler, N., & Reicher, S. (2005). Delinquency: Cause or consequence of social exclusion? In Abrams, D., Marques, J., & Hogg, M. (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 211–241). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Freud, S. (1915). Repression. In the standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIV (1914–1916). London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Gerard, H. B. (1985). When and how the minority prevails. In Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Avermaet, E. (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 171–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gerard, H. B., & Hoyt, M. F. (1974). Distinctiveness of social categorization and attitude towards ingroup members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 836–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, J. (1991). From bottles to bombs: The role of success and occupying a unique niche in organizational transformation. Sociological Focus, 24, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafer, C. L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on just-world theory: Problems, developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytical investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 862–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In Reis, H. T. & Judd, C. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. (pp. 451–477). New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kumkale, G. T., & Albarracín, D. (2004). The sleeper effect in persuasion: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 143–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, J. M. (1989). Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In Paulus, P. (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 187–231). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Shared reality and social influence in groups and organizations. In Butera, F. & Mugny, G. (Eds.), Social influence in social reality: Promoting individual and social change (pp. 33–52). Bern, Switzerland: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.Google Scholar
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 (pp. 229–257). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M., & Kerr, N. L. (2007). Inclusion and exclusion: Implications for group processes. In Kruglanski, A. E. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 759–784). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M, & Moreland, R. L. (2006). Small groups: An overview. In Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L. (Eds.), Small groups (pp. 1–10). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Maass, A., West, S., & Cialdini, R. B. (1987). Minority influence and conversion. In Hendrick, C. (Ed.), Group processes: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 55–79). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2001). Social categorization, social identification, and rejection of deviant group members. In Hogg, M. A., & Tindale, R. S. (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 400–424) Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Conformity and independence in groups: Majorities and minorities. In Hogg, M. A. & Tindale, R. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 209–234). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2008). Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The source-context-elaboration model. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 237–326). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marx-Ferree, M., & Tripp, A. M. (2006). Global Feminism: Women's Transnational Activism, Organizations and Human Rights. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Michel, A. (1979). Le féminisme. [Feminism]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behaviour. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985a). Innovation and minority influence. In Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Avermaet, E. (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 9–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985b). Social influence and conformity. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 347–412). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S., Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1981). “Sleeper effect” et/ou effet minoritaire? Etude théorique et expérimentale de l'influence sociale à retardement [Sleeper effect and/or minority effect?]. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 1, 199–221.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., & Pérez, J. A. (2007). A study of minorities as victims. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 725–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mucchi-Faina, A. (1987). Mouvement social et conversion. [Social movements and conversion]. In Moscovici, S. & Mugny, G. (Eds.), Psychologie de la conversion (pp. 181–196). Cousset: Delval.Google Scholar
Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mugny, G., Kaiser, C., Papastamou, S., & Perez, J. (1984). Intergroup relations, identification and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1989a). L´effet de cryptomnésie sociale. [The social cryptomnesia effect]. Bulletin Suisse des Psychologues, 7, 3–6.Google Scholar
Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1989b). L´influence sociale comme processus de changement. [Social influence as a change process]. Hermès, 5–6, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). The differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C. J. (1994). The value of minority dissent. In Moscovici, S., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Maass, A. (Ed.), Minority influence (pp. 3–15). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Foundation, Nobel (2008). Nobel peace prize. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://nobelprize.org/
Pérez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1990). Minority influence, manifest discrimination and latent influence. In Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (Eds.), Social identity theory. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Pérez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In Witte, E. & Davis, J. (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (Vol. 2, Small group processes and interpersonal relations, pp. 191–210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petrillo, G. (1994). Collective movements and minority influence: The processes of social influence beyond the confines of experimental groups. In Moscovici, S., Faina, A. Mucchi, & Maass, A. (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 209–230). Chicago, IL:Nelson Hall:Google Scholar
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prislin, R., & Christensen, P. N. (2005). Social change in the aftermath of successful minority influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quiamzade, A., Mugny, G., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Butera, F. (in press). The complexity of majority versus minority influence processes. In Martin, R. & Hewstone, M. (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes and consequences. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Rochefort, F. (1999) L'antifeminisme à la belle époque: une réthorique réactionnaire. [The “belle époque” antifeminism: a reactionary rhetoric]. In Bard, C. (Ed.), Un siècle d'antiféminisme (pp. 133–147). Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Federico, C., & Pratto, F. (2001). Legitimizing ideologies: The social dominance approach. In Jost, J. & Major, B. (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 307–331). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, D. A., Soule, S. A., & Kriesi, H. (2004). The Blackwell companion to social movements. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swim, J. K., Mallett, R., & Stangor, C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of sexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & St-Pierre, L. (1999). Neosexism among women: The role of personally experienced social mobility attempts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1487–1497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Twenge, J. M., & Zucker, A. L. (1999). What is a feminist? Evaluations and stereotypes in closed and open-ended responses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 591–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernet, J. P., & Butera, F. (2003). Guilt for cryptomnesia moderates attitudes towards feminists. New Review of Social Psychology, 2, 16–20.Google Scholar
Vernet, J. P., & Butera, F. (2005). Women, women rights and feminist movements. Social Science Information, 44, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernet, J. P., Vala, J., Amâncio, L., & Butera, F. (in press). Conscientization of Social Cryptomnesia Reduces Hostile Sexism and Rejection of Feminists. Social Psychology.
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S., & White, T. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, K. D. (2001). Ostracism: The power of silence. New York: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. C. (2001). Restricted intergroup boundaries: Tokenism, ambiguity and the tolerance of injustice. In Jost, J. & Major, B. (Eds.), The Psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 223–254). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zald, M., & Ash, R. (1966). Social movement organizations: Growth, decay and change. Social Forces, 44, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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
×