Some research has found that a minority message source is less persuasive than a majority source on personally relevant issues. In that research, participants were forewarned that they would have to report their attitudinal reactions. We hypothesized that if recipients were given an opinion-irrelevant (recall) task instead, source status would not affect attitudes. Participants were asked to read a strong, outcome-relevant, counterattitudinal persuasive essay presented by a minority or majority source under opinion or recall task directions. The minority was less persuasive than the majority in the opinion task condition, and this effect was mediated by source evaluation and favorable cognitive elaboration. No source status effects emerged in the recall task condition.
Allen, V. L. , & Levine, J. M. (1969). Consensus and conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 389-399.
2.
Alvaro, E. M. , & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counterargumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949-964.
3.
Apsler, R. , & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 162-166.
4.
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.
5.
Bohner, G. , Chaiken, S., & Hunyadi, P. (1994). The role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of heuristic and systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 207-221.
6.
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, 752-766.
7.
Chaiken, S. , Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. Gollwitzer & J. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action (pp. 553-578). New York: Guilford.
8.
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.
9.
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: Guilford.
10.
Chen, S. , Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 44-49.
11.
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.
12.
Cialdini, R. B. , Levy, A., Herman, C. P., Kozlowski, L. T., & Petty, R. E. (1976). Elastic shifts of opinion: Determinants of direction and durability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 663-672.
13.
Cialdini, R. B. , & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Crano, W. D. (2001). Social influence, social identity, and ingroup leniency. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 122-143). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
15.
Crano, W. D. , & Alvaro, E. M. (1998a). Indirect minority influence: The leniency contract revisited. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 99-115.
16.
Crano, W. D. , & Alvaro, E. M. (1998b). 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, UK: Wiley.
17.
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.
18.
David, B. , & Turner, J. C. (2001). Majority and minority influence: A single process self-categorization analysis. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 91-121). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
19.
De Dreu, C. K. W. , & De Vries, N. K. (Eds.). (2001). Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for Innovation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
20.
Deutsch, M. , & Gerard, H. G. (1955). A study of normative and information social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
21.
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: Implications for innovation (pp. 40-59). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
22.
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.
23.
Giner-Sorolla, R. , & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.
24.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostram (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New York: Academic Press.
25.
Hastie, R. , & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
26.
Johnson, B. T. , & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
27.
Kaplan, M. F. (1987). The influencing process in group decision making. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes (Vol. 8, pp. 189-212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Kerr, N. L. (in press) When is a minority a minority? Active vs. passive minority advocacy and social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology.
29.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
30.
Laughlin, P. R. (1988). Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 254-267.
31.
Levine, J. M. (1980). Reactions to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 375-430). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
Liberman, A. , & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669-679.
33.
Maass, A. , & Clark, R. D. (1984). The hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428-450.
34.
Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.
35.
Mackie, D. M. , & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). On-line and memory-based modification of attitudes: Determinants of message recall-attitude change correspondence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 5-16.
36.
Martin, R. , & Hewstone, M. (in press). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing.
37.
McGuire, W. J. , & Papageorgis, D. (1962). Effectiveness of forewarning in developing resistance to persuasion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 24-34.
38.
Messé, L. A. , El-Alayli, A., & Chugh, A. (2000, February). Source status cue and involvement effects on persuasion and impressions: Some implications for ELM and minority influence. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Nashville, TN.
39.
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.
40.
Moscovici, S. , & Faucheux, C. (1972). Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 149-202). New York: Academic Press.
41.
Moscovici, S. , & Lage, E. (1976). Studies in social influence III. Minority versus majority influence in a group. European Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149-174.
42.
Moscovici, S. , Mucchi-Faina, A., & Maass, A. (1994). Minority influence. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
43.
Moscovici, S. , & Personnaz, B. (1980). Studies in social-influence V. Minority influence and conversion behavior in a perceptual task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 270-282.
44.
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: Implications for innovation (pp. 60-90). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
45.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 10-20.
46.
Nemeth, C. J. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulant to group performance. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 95-111). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47.
Nemeth, C. J. , & Kwan, J. L. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking, and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 788-799.
48.
Peterson, R. S. , & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus versus flexibility: Majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 14-23.
49.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 645-655.
50.
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). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
51.
Petty, R. E. , Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
52.
Petty, R. E. , & Wegener, D. (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.
53.
Stasser, G. , & Stewart, D. (1992). Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: Solving a problem versus making a judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 426-434.
54.
Trost, M. R. , & Kenrick, D. T. (1994). Ego involvement in the minority influence paradigm: The double-edged sword of minority influence. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucci-Faina, & A. Maass (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 149-161). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
55.
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.
56.
Trost, M. R. , & Ybarra, O. J. (1994). Thinking about minority advocacies: Social influence and social avoidance. Unpublished manuscript.
57.
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.
58.
Zdaniuk, B. , & Levine, J. M. (1996). Anticipated interaction and thought generation: The role of faction size. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 201-218.
