legitimate power can be influential

legitimate power can be influential and ultimately sway the majority to its own viewpoint. For example, in a variant of the single deviate study, Asch (1952) found a quite different response. When a correct majority of eleven true participants was confronted by a deviant/incorrect minority of nine confederates, the majority remained independent (i.e. continued responding correctly) but took the minority's responses far more seriously - no one laughed. Clearly, the minority had some influence over the majority, albeit not enough in this experiment to produce manifest conformity.
History illustrates the power of minorities. It could be argued that if the only form of social influence was majority influence, then complete social homogeneity would have been reached tens of thousands of years ago, individuals and groups always being swayed to adopt the views and practices of the growing numerical majority. Minorities, particu-larly those that are active and organised, introduce innovations that ultimately produce social change: without minority influence, social change would be very difficult to explain. For example, the anti-war rallies during the 1960s in the United States had an effect on majority attitudes that hastened withdrawal from Vietnam. Similarly, the suffragettes of the 1920s gradually changed public opinion so that women were granted the vote, and the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) rallies in Western Europe in the early 1980s gradually shifted public opinion away from the 'benefits' of nuclear proliferation. An excel-lent example of an active minority is Greenpeace: the group is numerically small (in terms of'activist' members) but has important influence on public opinion through the high pro-file of some of its members and the wide publicity of its views.
The sorts of question that are important here are whether minorities and majorities gain influence via different social practices, and, more fundamentally, whether the underlying psychology is different. For recent overviews of minority influence research and theory see Hogg (2010), Martin and Hewstone (2003, 2008) and Martin, Hewstone, Martin, and Gardikiotis (2008), and for a meta-analysis of research findings, see Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, and Blackstone (1994).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

kuasa yang sah dapat berpengaruh dan akhirnya bergoyang mayoritas sudut pandang sendiri. Sebagai contoh, dalam varian studi menyimpang tunggal, Asch (1952) menemukan respon yang sangat berbeda. Ketika sebagian besar benar sebelas peserta benar dihadapkan dengan minoritas menyimpang salah sembilan bergabung, sebagian besar tetap independen (yaitu terus menanggapi dengan benar) tetapi mengambil minoritas tanggapan jauh lebih serius - tidak ada yang tertawa. Jelas, minoritas memiliki beberapa pengaruh atas sebagian besar, meskipun tidak cukup dalam percobaan ini untuk menghasilkan kesesuaian nyata. History illustrates the power of minorities. It could be argued that if the only form of social influence was majority influence, then complete social homogeneity would have been reached tens of thousands of years ago, individuals and groups always being swayed to adopt the views and practices of the growing numerical majority. Minorities, particu-larly those that are active and organised, introduce innovations that ultimately produce social change: without minority influence, social change would be very difficult to explain. For example, the anti-war rallies during the 1960s in the United States had an effect on majority attitudes that hastened withdrawal from Vietnam. Similarly, the suffragettes of the 1920s gradually changed public opinion so that women were granted the vote, and the CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) rallies in Western Europe in the early 1980s gradually shifted public opinion away from the 'benefits' of nuclear proliferation. An excel-lent example of an active minority is Greenpeace: the group is numerically small (in terms of'activist' members) but has important influence on public opinion through the high pro-file of some of its members and the wide publicity of its views. The sorts of question that are important here are whether minorities and majorities gain influence via different social practices, and, more fundamentally, whether the underlying psychology is different. For recent overviews of minority influence research and theory see Hogg (2010), Martin and Hewstone (2003, 2008) and Martin, Hewstone, Martin, and Gardikiotis (2008), and for a meta-analysis of research findings, see Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, and Blackstone (1994).

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

kekuasaan yang sah dapat berpengaruh dan akhirnya bergoyang mayoritas untuk sudut pandang sendiri. Misalnya, dalam varian dari studi menyimpang tunggal, Asch (1952) menemukan respon yang sangat berbeda. Ketika mayoritas yang benar dari sebelas peserta benar dihadapkan oleh menyimpang / minoritas yang salah dari sembilan sekutu, mayoritas tetap independen (yaitu terus bereaksi dengan benar) tetapi mengambil tanggapan minoritas jauh lebih serius - tidak ada yang tertawa. Jelas, minoritas memiliki beberapa pengaruh atas mayoritas, meskipun tidak cukup dalam percobaan ini untuk menghasilkan sesuai manifes.
Sejarah menggambarkan kekuatan minoritas. Dapat dikatakan bahwa jika satu-satunya bentuk pengaruh sosial adalah pengaruh mayoritas, maka homogenitas sosial yang lengkap akan telah mencapai puluhan ribu tahun yang lalu, individu dan kelompok selalu sedang bergoyang untuk mengadopsi pandangan dan praktek dari sebagian numerik berkembang. Minoritas, particu-larly mereka yang aktif dan terorganisir, memperkenalkan inovasi yang pada akhirnya menghasilkan perubahan sosial: tanpa pengaruh minoritas, perubahan sosial akan sangat sulit untuk menjelaskan. Misalnya, aksi unjuk rasa anti-perang selama tahun 1960-an di Amerika Serikat memiliki efek pada sikap mayoritas yang mempercepat penarikan dari Vietnam. Demikian pula, hak pilih dari tahun 1920-an secara bertahap berubah opini publik sehingga perempuan diberikan suara, dan CND (Kampanye Perlucutan Senjata Nuklir) demonstrasi di Eropa Barat pada awal tahun 1980 secara bertahap bergeser opini publik jauh dari 'manfaat' dari proliferasi nuklir. Contoh excel-dipinjamkan dari minoritas aktif Greenpeace: kelompok adalah numerik kecil (dalam hal of'activist 'anggota) tetapi memiliki pengaruh penting pada opini publik melalui tinggi pro-berkas dari beberapa anggota dan publisitas luas yang views.
The macam pertanyaan yang penting di sini adalah apakah minoritas dan mayoritas mendapatkan pengaruh melalui praktek-praktek sosial yang berbeda, dan, yang lebih mendasar, apakah psikologi yang mendasari berbeda. Untuk ikhtisar baru-baru ini penelitian pengaruh minoritas dan teori melihat Hogg (2010), Martin dan Hewstone (2003, 2008) dan Martin, Hewstone, Martin, dan Gardikiotis (2008), dan untuk meta-analisis dari hasil penelitian, melihat Wood, Lundgren , Ouellette, Busceme, dan Blackstone (1994).