Processing minority and majority communications: The role of conflict with prior attitudes

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Volumn 28, Issue 9, 2002, Pages 1172-1182

  Erb, Hans Peter ^a   Bohner, Gerd ^b   Rank, Susanne ^c   Einwiller, Sabine ^d  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^b BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c SAP RESEARCH   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ST GALLEN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044534616     PISSN: 01461672     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/01461672022812003     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Abelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 25-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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, 57, 1173-1182.
4. Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G. B., & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 33-68.
5. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
6. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
7. Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630.
8. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & V. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-95). New York: Guilford.
9. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584.
10. Erb, H.-P., & Bohner, G. (2001). Mere consensus effects in minority and majority influence. In C.K.W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence (pp. 40-59). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
11. Erb, H.-P., Bohner, G., Schmalzte, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 396-409.
12. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 41-80.
13. Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.
14. Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653-666.
15. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192-240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
16. Kleinhesselink, R. R., & Edwards, R. E. (1975). Seeking and avoiding belief-discrepant information as a function of its perceived refutability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 787-790.
17. Kruglanski, A. W., & Mackie, C. M. (1990). Majority and minority influence: A judgmental process analysis. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 229-261.
18. Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669-679.
19. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
20. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
21. Mackie, D. M., & Hunter, S. B. (1999). Majority and minority influence: The interactions of social identity and social cognition mediators. In C. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 332-353). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
22. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low motivation settings: The effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
23. Martin, R. (1998). Majority and minority influence using the afterimage paradigm: A series of attempted replications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 1-26.
24. 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.
25. Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & A. Aaronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 347-412). New York: Random House.
26. Moscovici, S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. Sociometry, 32, 365-379.
27. Mugny, G. (1975). Bedeutung der Konsistenz bei der Beeinflussung durch eine konkordante oder diskordante minderheitliche Kommunikation bei sozialen Beurteilungsobjekten [The meaning of consistency in the case of influence through a concordant or discordant minority communication about social judgment-objects]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 6, 324-332.
28. Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
29. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
30. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
31. 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. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
32. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
33. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637-654.
34. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
35. 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.
36. Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Buscemc, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.