Ng K. Yee, Van Dyne Linn
Michigan State University
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2001 Mar;84(2):198-225. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2000.2927.
Results of this experiment demonstrate that individualists and collectivists react differently to minority influence. Based on the distinction between objectivity and preference norms in the minority influence literature, we hypothesize that individualism and collectivism influence (A) responses to minority influence (focusing on the target of influence) and (B) effectiveness of minority influence (focusing on the influence agent). Our results replicate past research and demonstrate improved decision quality for individuals exposed to a minority perspective. Moreover, minority influence targets with high horizontal individualism and low horizontal collectivism made higher quality decisions. Influence targets with high vertical collectivism demonstrated higher quality decisions when the influence agent held a high status position in the group. Results also demonstrate that influence agents with high vertical individualism experienced less role stress than those with low vertical individualism. Finally, influence agents with low role stress were more effective in influencing the decision making of others. We discuss our findings in terms of boundary conditions to the minority influence process. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.
本次实验结果表明,个人主义者和集体主义者对少数派影响的反应有所不同。基于少数派影响文献中客观性规范和偏好规范的区别,我们假设个人主义和集体主义会影响:(A)对少数派影响的反应(关注影响目标)以及(B)少数派影响的有效性(关注影响主体)。我们的结果重复了过去的研究,并表明接触少数派观点的个体决策质量有所提高。此外,具有高横向个人主义和低横向集体主义的少数派影响目标做出了更高质量的决策。当影响主体在群体中具有较高地位时,具有高纵向集体主义的影响目标做出了更高质量的决策。结果还表明,具有高纵向个人主义的影响主体比具有低纵向个人主义的影响主体经历的角色压力更小。最后,角色压力小的影响主体在影响他人决策方面更有效。我们根据少数派影响过程的边界条件来讨论我们的发现。版权所有2000年学术出版社。