Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 313-330

  Martin, Robin ^a   Hewstone, Miles ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038320337     PISSN: 00462772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.146     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baker, S. M. (1992). Majority and minority influence: A message processing perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University.
2. Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. Bohner, G., Frank, S., & Erb, H. P. (1998). Heuristic processing of distinctiveness information in minority and majority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 855-860.
5. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: The Guilford Press.
6. Crano, W. D., & Alvaro, E. M. (1998). The context/comparison model of social influence: mechanisms, structure, and linkages that underlie indirect attitude change. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 175-202). Chichester: John Wiley.
7. Crano, W. D., & Chen, X. (1998). The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1437-1450.
8. De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1993). Numerical support, information processing and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647-663.
9. 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.
10. De Vries, N. K., De Dreu, C. K. W., Gordijn, E., & Schuurman, M. (1996). Majority and minority influence: a dual interpretation. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 145172). Chichester: John Wiley.
11. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12. Erb, H. P., Bohner, G., Schmälzle, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and discrepancy: cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 620-633.
13. Gardikiotis, A. (1999). Majority and minority influence in a media context: Message processing and social consensus. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cardiff University, Wales.
14. Gordijn, E. H. (1998). Being persuaded or persuading oneself: The influence of numerical support on attitudes and information processing. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
15. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
16. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
17. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001a). Conformity and independence in groups: majorities and minorities. In M. A. Hogg, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (Vol. 1, pp. 209-234). Oxford: Blackwell.
18. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001b). Determinants and consequences of cognitive processes in majority and minority influence. In J. Forgas, & K. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 315-330). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
19. Martin, R., Gardikiotis, A., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 645-665.
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. Lindsey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd edn, pp. 347-412). New York: Random House.
22. Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.
23. Mugny, G., Butera, F., Sanchez-Mazas, M., & Pérez, J. A. (1995). Judgments in conflict: the conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In B. Boothe, R. Hirsig, A. Helminger, B. Meier, & R. Volkart (Eds.), Perception-evaluation-interpretation (pp. 160-168). Göttingen: Hogrefe and Huber.
24. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
25. Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & White, P. H. (1999). Stigmatized sources and persuasion: prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 19-34.
26. Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The 'false consensus effect': an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
27. Rosselli, F., Skelly, J. J., & Mackie, D. M. (1995). Processing rational and emotional messages: the cognitive and affective mediation of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 163-190.
28. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
29. 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.
30. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: a meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.