Majority versus minority influence: The role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 16-34

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

^a ASTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c ASTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 39749095928     PISSN: 00462772     EISSN: 10990992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.426     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counter argumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949-964.
2. Araya, T. (2003). The recall of stereotypes: The effects of incidentally activated directed forgetting instructions. Experimental Psychology, 50, 247-256.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Brandstätter, V., Ellemers, N., Gaviria, E., Giosue, F., Huguet, P., Kroon, M., Morchain, P., Pujal, M., Rubini, M., Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1991). Indirect majority and minority influence: An exploratory study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 199-211.
7. 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 Guildford Press.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1993). Numerical support, information processing and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647-663.
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 Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (Eds.). (2001). Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. Oxford: Blackwell.
13. 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. 145-172). Chichester: John Wiley.
14. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
15. Erb, H.-P, Bohner, G., Rank, S., & Einwiller, S. (2002). Processing minority and majority communications: The role of conflict with prior attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1172-1182.
16. 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.
17. Gardikiotis, A. (2005). Majority and minority source and processing of the influential message. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 12, 455-469.
18. Gardikiotis, A., Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). Group consensus in social influence: Type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1163-1174.
19. 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.
20. Gordijn, E. H., De Vries, N. K., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Minority influence on focal and related attitudes: Change in size, attributions and information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1315-1326.
21. 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.
22. Haugtvedt, C. P., & Wegener, D. T. (1994). Message order effects in persuasion: An attitude strength perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 205-218.
23. Kerr, N. (2002). When is a minority a minority? Active vs. passive minority advocacy and social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 471-483.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Maass, A., & Clark, R. D., III. (1984). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
27. Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
28. Martin, R., Gardikiotis, A., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 645-665.
29. Martin, P. Y., Laing, J., Martin, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Caffeine, cognition, and persuasion: Evidence for caffeine increasing the systematic processing of persuasive messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 160-182.
30. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001). 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.
31. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003a). Social influence processes of control and change: Conformity, obedience to authority, and innovation. In M. A. Hogg, & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 347-366). London: Sage.
32. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003b). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 313-330.
33. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (in prep.). Persistence of attitudes based on persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status. Manuscript in preparation.
34. Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y. (2003). Resistance to persuasive messages as function of majority and minority source status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 585-593.
35. Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y., (2007). Systematic and heuristic processing of majority and minority endorsed messages: The effects of varying 'levels of orientation' and outcome relevance on attitude and message processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 43-56.
36. Martin, P. Y., & Marrington, S. (2005). Morningness-eveningness orientation, optimal time-of-day and attitude change: Evidence for the systematic processing of a persuasive communication. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 367-377.
37. Martin, P. Y., & Martin, R. (2006). The effects of caffeine consumption on direct and indirect majority and minority influence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1961-1979.
38. Martin, R., Martin, P. Y., Smith, J. R., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Majority versus minority influence and prediction of behavioral intentions and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, (in press).
39. 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.
40. Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
41. 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.
42. Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindsey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 347-412). New York: Random House.
43. 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.
44. Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press.
45. Mugny, G., Butera, F., Sanchez-Mazas, M., & Pérez, J. A. (1995). Judgements 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.
46. Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
47. Nemeth, C., & Chiles, C. (1998). Modellling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 275-280.
48. Paller, K. A. (1990). Recall and stem-completion priming have different electrophysiological correlates and are modified differentially by directed forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 16, 1021-1032.
49. Pérez, J. A., Falomir, J. M., & Mugny, G. (1995). Internalization of conflict and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 117-124.
50. Pérez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. H. Witte, & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Small group processes and interpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 191-210). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude change. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 195-255). New York: McGraw-Hill.
52. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
53. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To think or not to think? Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. C. Brock, & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 81-116). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. Shuper, P. A., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2004). Minority versus majority influence and uncertainty orientation: Processing persuasive messages on the basis of situational expectancies. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 127-147.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. Wood, W., Pool, 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.
63. 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.