Russell D. Clark

Hidden impact of minorities: fifteen years of minority influence research

This article reviews and evaluates the literature on minority influence since Moscovicis original formulation of minority influence theory in 1969. Alternative theoretical explanations (attributional accounts and formal models of social influence) are discussed. Special attention is given to studies contrasting minority influence with conformity processes. These studies suggest that people tend to yield to the majority in public (public compliance in the conformity paradigm), while accepting the position of the minority in private (private acceptance in the minority influence paradigm). Theoretical implications of this finding are discussed. Since Sherifs (1935) and Aschs (1951) early work on conformity, it has become a social psychological truism that individuals tend to yield to a majority position even when that position is clearly incorrect. Conformity became a term nearly equivalent in meaning to social influence. It was not until 1969 that Moscovici and his coauthors pointed out that social influence is by no means limited to a one-direction dependency of the minority on the majority. Reversing the usual conformity paradigm, Moscovici, Lage, and Naffrechoux (1969) demonstrated that a consistent minority is able to exert a remarkable degree of influ

Examination of Hole-to-Hole Streakiness on the PGA Tour:

A study investigated streakiness among professional golfers. Hole-to-hole scores within 747 tournaments from a randomly chosen group of 35 players on the 1997 PGA Tour were analyzed. Contingency analyses gave no evidence for streakiness. Players were just as likely to score par or better following an above par hole as to make a par or better following a par or better hole. These results are consistent with those found for individual players in baseball and basketball.

Do Professional Golfers “Choke”?

A study involving results of the PGA Tour, Senior PGA Tour, and the LPGA Tour investigated whether “choking under pressure” occurs among professional golfers. Players were individuals who either were leading going into the final round or within five strokes of the lead. It was hypothesized that players who were one stroke from the lead and to a lesser extent players who were leading should have higher final round scores than those players who were two or more strokes from the lead (“choking”). However, the results did not support the choking hypothesis. Players who were leading going into the final round won the majority of the time.

EVALUATING THE PHENOMENON OF CHOKING IN PROFESSIONAL GOLFERS

A study involving 775 professional golfers investigated whether choking occurs in the PGA Tours Qualifying Tournaments, known among golfers for its high pressure. It was hypothesized that players who were near or at the cutoff for earning a tour card would have higher final round scores than players whose scores entering the final round were either four or five strokes better or worse. However, the data did not support a choking hypothesis. There were no significant differences in final round scores for the conditions.

An Examination of the “Hot Hand” in Professional Golfers:

A study investigated the “hot hand” among professional golfers. Hole-to-hole scores within 747 tournaments from a randomly chosen group of 35 players on the 1997 PGA Tour were analyzed. Contingency analyses gave no evidence for the “hot hand.” Players were just as likely to score a birdie or better following a par or worse hole as make a birdie or better following a birdie or better hole. These results are consistent with those found for individual players in baseball and basketball.

Minority influence: the role of the rate of majority defection and persuasive arguments

An experiment employing the Twelve Angry Men paradigm was conducted to determine the role of the rate of majority defection to the minority position and the use of persuasive arguments by the minority on minority influence. Subjects were more influenced by the minority when it provided persuasive arguments by refuting the majority viewpoint than when the minority did not. More minority influence occurred when the minority obtained majority defectors than when the minority did not. Moreover, the rate of majority defection made a difference. Minority influence was not obtained with the initial acquisition of a single defector and the significant influence that occurred with the acquisition of four defectors was not further increased by the acquisition of additional defectors. The results for the number of majority defectors were generally consistent with Tanford and Penrods social influence model. Finally, the issue of the number of majority defectors versus the speed at which they defect is discussed.

A Longitudinal Study of “Choking” in Professional Golfers

This study followed the performance of 35 professional golfers who played from 1997 to 2004 on the Professional Golfers Association Tour (PGA Tour) and investigated whether any players were prone to “choke” when placed in high-pressure situations. Choking was defined as a player having significantly higher than expected final round scores and being less likely than other professional golfers to win when in contention to win tournaments. Analysis yielded no support for a choking under pressure hypothesis. None of the players when in contention to win were both more likely to have higher than expected scores in the final round and less likely to win than other professional golfers in the sample. Limitations of the study were mentioned.

The beauty of match play.

This study investigated whether higher seeded players have an advantage in the only match play event on the PGA Tour. Analysis showed that the higher seeded won 54% of the time (p = .06); the correlation was .17 (p < .01) between higher seeded players winning and the difference in World Rankings between players. Given professional golfers are at the highest end of the distribution of golf ability, these players are so nearly equal in ability, it is mainly a matter of chance who will win a match play event or who will have the best round on any given day.

On the unreliability of golf scores for professional golfers: a case for restriction of range.

This study investigated whether the unreliability of golf scores for professional golfers can be accounted for by restriction of range. Reliability estimates for hole-to-hole scores were calculated from data from 2,679 players on the PGA Tour, 32 senior club professionals, and 62 men and 49 women amateurs who had won either their club or course championship. Reliability estimates were small and negative for the PGA Tour (Cronbach alphas ranging from −.31 to −.15) but mostly positive and substantially higher for senior club professionals and amateurs (Cronbach alphas ranging from −.46 to .76). It was concluded that the greater reliability of performance for senior club pros and amateurs than for PGA Tour players was due to the greater variability in skills and performance of the club professionals and amateurs.