Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 585-593

  Martin, Robin ^a   Hewstone, Miles ^b   Martin, Pearl Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0242485535     PISSN: 00221031     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00037-4     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Chen, H. C., Reardon, R., Rea, C., & Moore, D. J. (1992). Forewarning of content and involvement: Consequences for persuasion and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 523-541.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10. Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 308-319.
11. Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.
12. Hutton, D. G., & Baumeister, R. F. (1992). Self-awareness and attitude change: Seeing oneself on the central route to persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 68-75.
13. Krosnick, J. A., Boninger, D. S., Chuang, Y. C., Berent, M. K., & Carnot, C. G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-1151.
14. Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 861-876.
15. 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.
16. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
17. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
18. Martin, R., Gardikiotis, A., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 645-665.
19. 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, Vol. 1: Group processes (pp. 209 234). Oxford: Blackwell.
20. 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.
21. Martin, R. & Hewstone, M. (2003). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, in press.
22. McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191-229). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Moskowitz, G. B., & Chaiken, S. (2001). Mediators of minority social influence: Cognitive processing mechanisms revealed through a persuasion paradigm. In C. K. W. de Dreu, & N. K. de Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence (pp. 60-90). Oxford: Blackwell.
26. Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.
27. Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude change. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 195-255). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28. Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., Priester, J. R., & Feinstein, A. H. (2001). Individual versus group interest violation: Surprise as a determinant of argument scrutiny and persuasion. Social Cognition, 19, 418-442.
29. 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.
30. Petty, R. E. & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope, (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37-72). New York: Guilford Press.
31. Pomerantz, E. M., Chaiken, S., & Tordesilias, R. S. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 419., 69, 408.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. White, P. H., & Harkins, S. G. (1994). Race of source effects in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 790-807.
35. Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 677-688.
36. Zuwerink, J. R., & Devine, P. G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It's not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 931-944.
37. Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570.
38. 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.