Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: The in-group minority in intragroup and intergroup contexts
Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion: The in-group minority in intragroup and intergroup contexts
复制标题
DOI：
10.1348/014466699164086
复制
发表时间：
1999-06-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Turner, JC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David, B;Turner, JC
所报告的研究的目的是提供一个自我分类为基础的解释的独特的时间模式的少数民族的影响（大卫，1994年;大卫和特纳，1992年，1996年;特纳，1991年）是基于社会背景的变化。温和的女权主义者参与者接触到一个内组少数民族（分离主义女权主义者）的消息，在没有明确的背景下，组内，或组间的背景下，并立即和延迟的影响措施。在延迟的影响力测量之前，明确的上下文要么被陈述一次，要么被重复。参与者拒绝了少数民族的信息时，它是在一个纯粹的女权主义背景下，并接受它的背景下，其中包括突出的外群体。当没有明确的背景下，当一个组内的背景下，说明之前的直接措施，参与者显示的经典转换模式没有直接的影响，其次是延迟的影响力的证据。讨论的是影响只能从那些被归类为类似于自我的自我分类主张的结果的含义，以及这一建议与转换理论的冲突（Moscovici，1980，1985; Moscovici & Mugny，1983; Moscovici & Personnaz，1980）和冲突阐述理论（Mugny，Butera，Sanchez-Mazas & Perez，1994; Mugny & Perez，1987，1991），我们认为这是为了解释少数人的转换，作为一个产品的本质区别，从自我的预期影响力的来源。
The aim of the reported studies was to provide a self-categorization-based explanation of the unique temporal patterning of minority influence (David, 1994; David & Turner, 1992, 1996; Turner, 1991) as being based on changes in social context. Moderate feminist participants were exposed to an in-group minority (separatist feminist) message in no explicit context, an intragroup, or an intergroup context, and immediate and delayed measures of influence were taken. The explicit contexts were either stated once or repeated prior to the delayed measure of influence. Participants rejected the minority message when it was presented in a purely feminist context and accepted it in a context which included the salient outgroup. When no explicit context was stated and when an intragroup context was stated prior to the immediate measure only, participants displayed the classic conversion pattern of no immediate influence followed by evidence of delayed influence. Discussed are implications of the results for the self-categorization claim that influence can only proceed from those categorized as similar to self, and the conflict of this proposal with conversion theory (Moscovici, 1980, 1985; Moscovici & Mugny, 1983; Moscovici & Personnaz, 1980) and conflict elaboration theory (Mugny, Butera, Sanchez-Mazas & Perez, 1994; Mugny & Perez, 1987, 1991), which we understand to explain minority conversion as a product of the essential difference from self of prospective sources of influence.