Previous theories of both social influence and persuasion have maintained a dichotomy between influence which is seen as thoughtful, grounded in objective reality and is longlasting, and influence which is impressionistically based and involves more superficial processing. Many theorists have suggested that groups are influential by means of the latter form of influence. Itfollowsfrom such a perspective that differences in the persuasive power of ingroups and outgroups should be mediated by peripheral cues rather than the persuasive nature of the message. In two experiments (Ns = 129 and 90) it was found that outgroups were less persuasive than ingroups when group memberships were made salient by having subjects commit themselves to groups. This is inconsistent with the traditional view but consistent with self-categorization theory. There was also evidence of more accurate recall by subjects in the salient ingroup condition. These effects are evidence against the view that group-based processing involves peripheral processing of the message.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrams, D. , & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 195-228). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
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.
Braver, S. , Linder, D., Corwin, T., & Cialdini, R. B. (1977). Some conditions that affect admissions of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 565-576.
4.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-756.
5.
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. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Charters, W. W. , & Newcomb, T. M. (1952). Some attitudinal effects of experimentally increased salience of a membership group. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt.
7.
David, B. , & Turner, J. C. (1992, July). Studies in self-categorization and minority conversion. Paper presented to the Symposium on Minority Influence at the Joint EAESP/SESP Meeting, Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
8.
Deutsch, M. , & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
9.
Festinger, L. (1947). The role of group belongingness in a voting situation. Human Relations, 1, 154-180.
10.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.
11.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
12.
Goethals, G. R. , & Nelson, E. R. (1973). Similarity inthe influence process: The belief-value distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 117-122.
13.
Jones, E. E. , & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
14.
Judd, C. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in evaluation research. Evaluation Research, 5, 602-619.
15.
Kelley, H. H. (1955). Salience of membership and resistance to change of group-anchored attitudes. Human Relations, 8, 275-289.
16.
Kelly, C. (1989). Political identity and perceived intragroup homogeneity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 239-250.
17.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.
18.
Mackie, D. , Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812-822.
19.
McGarty, C. , Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., & Haslam, S. A. (1993). The creation of uncertainty in the influence process: The roles of stimulus information and disagreement with similar others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 17-38.
20.
Moscovici, S. (1980). Towards a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239). New York: Academic Press.
21.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
22.
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.
23.
Sherif, C. W. , Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: Saunders.
24.
Simon, B. (1992). The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: Reintroducing the social context. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 1-30). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
25.
Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-34.
26.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
28.
Turner, J. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68-88). Oxford: Blackwell.
29.
Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
30.
Turner, J. C. , Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social grvup: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
31.
Turner, J. C. , & Oakes, P. J. (1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed., pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
van Knippenberg, D. , & Wilke, H.A.M. (1992). Prototypicality of arguments and conformity to ingroup norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 141-155.
33.
Wilder, D. A. (1991). Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups and outgroups: Organization of information and attribution of independence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1202-1213.
