The impact of minority and majority support on attitude change is examined in a self-persuasion task. Two studies show that pro-attitudinal advocacy for the majority leads to more self-persuasion than does advocacy for the minority. In contrast, devil’s advocacy for a minority leads to stronger self-persuasion than for a majority. No differences are found with respect to the number and nature of the arguments generated. Results suggest that self-persuasion is mediated by the extent to which one perceives the group of people argued for as similar to oneself. Two follow-up studies manipulating similarity to the group argued for support of this notion. When arguing for an ingroup, arguing for the majority is more self-persuasive than is arguing for the minority. Conversely, arguing for an outgroup leads to stronger self-persuasion for a minority than for a majority, because the minority is perceived as less threatening.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Axsom, D. , Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.
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.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Cook, J. , & Campbell, J. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. New York: Random House.
6.
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.
7.
De Dreu, C. K. W. , de Vries, N. K., Gordijn, E. H., & Schuurman, M. S. (1999). Effects of convergent-divergent processing on attitude change towards majority and minority supported arguments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 329-348.
8.
de Vries, N. K. , De Dreu, C. K. W., Gordijn, E., & 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, UK: Wiley.
9.
Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
10.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
11.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
12.
Gordijn, E. H. , de Vries, N. K., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (1997). The influence of counter-attitudinal numerical support on persuasion: The role of information processing and identification with the source. Unpublished manuscript.
13.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press.
14.
Janis, I. L. (1968). Attitude change via role playing. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A source book (pp. 810-818). Chicago: Rand McNally.
15.
Janis, I. L. , & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211-218.
16.
Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and non-systematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
17.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32.
18.
Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139-162). New York: Russell Sage.
19.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
20.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 289-338). New York: Academic Press.
22.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
23.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
24.
Wilson, T. D. (1990). Self-persuasion via self-reflection. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Self-inference processes: The Ontario symposium(Vol. 6, pp. 43-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Wood, W. , Lundgren, S., Oullette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.
26.
Wood, W. , Pool, G., 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.
