Convergent and divergent processing of majority and minority arguments: Effects on focal and related attitudes

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 29, Issue 2-3, 1999, Pages 329-348

  De Dreu, Carsten K W ^a   De Vries, Nanne K ^b   Gordijn, Ernestine H ^b   Schuurman, Mieke S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033084417     PISSN: 00462772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<329::aid-ejsp930>3.0.co;2-6     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aebischer, V., Hewstone, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). Minority influence and musical reference: Innovation by conversion, not coercion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 23-33.
2. Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counterargumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949-964.
3. Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutinity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
4. Bohner, G., Erb, H.-P., Reinhard, M., & Frank, E. (1996). Distinctiveness across topics in minority and majority influence: An attributional analyses and preliminary data. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 27-46.
5. Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (1996). Majority and minority influence, task representation, and inductive reasoning. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 123-136.
6. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1387-1397.
7. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds), Social influence: The Ontario symposium 5. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Cook, J., & Campbell., J. (1978). Quasi-experimentation. New York: Random House.
9. David, B., & Turner, J. (1996). Studies in self-categorization and minority influence: Is being a member of the out-group an advantage? British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 179-200.
10. De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1993). Numerical support, information processing and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647-662.
11. De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1996). Differential processing and attitude change following majority and minority arguments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 77-90.
12. De Vries, N. K., De Dreu, C. K. W., Gordijn, E. H., & Schuurman, M. (1996). Majority and minority influence: A dual role interpretation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds), European review of social psychology Vol. 7, (pp. 145-172). Chichester: Wiley.
13. Doms, M., & Van Avermaet, E., (1980). Majority influence, minority influence and conversion behavior: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 283-292.
14. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
15. Erb, H.-P., Bohner, G., Schmaelze, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and discrepancy: Mere consensus can bias information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, (in press).
16. Levine, J. M., & Russo, E., (1987). Majority and minority influence. In C. Hendrick (Ed). Group processes. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 13-54). Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
17. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D. III (1983). Internalization versus compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 197-215.
18. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
19. Martin, R. (1995) Majority and minority influence using the afterimage paradigm: A replication with an unambiguous blue slide. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 373-381.
20. Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239); New York: Academic Press.
21. Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds), The handbook of social psychology (3rd edn, pp. 347-412). New York: Random House.
22. Moscovici, S., & Personnaz, B., (1980). Studies in social influence: V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 270-282.
23. Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Mugny, G. (1985). Direct and indirect influence in the Asch paradigm: Effects of 'valid' or 'denied' information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 457-461.
25. Mugny, G., Kaiser, C., Papastamou, S., & Perez, J. A. (1984). Intergroup relations, identification and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 317-322.
26. Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Review, 93, 10-20.
28. Nemeth, C. (1995). Dissent as driving cognitions, attitudes and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273-291.
29. Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority versus minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 277-282.
30. Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thikning and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 786-797.
31. Peterson, R., & Nemeth, C. (1995). Focus versus flexibility: Majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 14-23.
32. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration liklihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
33. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
34. Schuurman, M., Siero, F., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Buunk, B. (1995). Differentiele verwerking van numerieke steun (Differential processing of majority and minority arguments). In N. K. De Vries, C. K. W. De Dreu, R. Vonk, & N. E. Ellemers (Eds), Fundamentale Sociale Psychologie (Vol. 9, pp. 1-9). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
35. Trost, M. R., Maass, A., & Kenrick, D. T. (1992). Minority influence: personal relevance biases cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 234-254.
36. Winer, B. J. (1981). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
37. Waenke, M., Bless, H., & Biller, B. (1996). Subjective experience versus content of information in the construction of attitude judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1105-1113.
38. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytical review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.
39. Wood, W., Poal, G. J., Leck, K., & Purvis, D. (1996). Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: The normative impact of majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1181-1193.