Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments.

Work on influence and underlying cognitive processes has moved from a consideration of cognition as primarily an intervening variable, useful for the understanding of the impact of certain source and receiver variables, to a dependent variable. In the present article, we focus on the power of disagreement to stimulate cognitive activity and argue that the effect of disagreement on cognition differs greatly as a function of majority or minority status of the source. Majority disagreement stimulates cognitive processes that are convergent in form. People think about the issue from the perspective of the majority to the exclusion of other considerations. This often leads to attitude change, but unless the source is “correct” or focuses on the appropriate task dimension, it tends not to foster quality of performance. By contrast, minority disagreement stimulates divergent thought. People think about the issue from multiple perspectives, one of which is that held by the minority. On balance, this serves the qu...

[1]  J. Bargh,et al.  Individual construct accessibility, person memory, and the recall-judgment link: The case of information overload. , 1985 .

[2]  C. Nemeth,et al.  From the 50s to the 70s: Women in jury deliberations. , 1976 .

[3]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. , 1987 .

[4]  C. Dreu,et al.  Numerical support, information processing and attitude change , 1993 .

[5]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness , 1951 .

[6]  J. Easterbrook.  The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. , 1959, Psychological review.

[7]  J. H. Davis.  Psychology and law: The last 15 years. , 1989 .

[8]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  Order Effects in Multiple Decisions by Groups: A Demonstration With Mock Juries and Trial Procedures , 1984 .

[9]  S. Moscovici,et al.  Influence of a consistent minority on the responses of a majority in a color perception task. , 1969, Sociometry.

[10]  Kathleen Mosier,et al.  When Convergent Thought Improves Performance: Majority Versus Minority Influence , 1992 .

[11]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Interactions between jurors as a function of majority vs. unanimity decision rules. , 1977 .

[12]  C. Nemeth,et al.  The Midpoint as an Anchor: Another Look at Discrepancy of Position and Attitude Change. , 1976 .

[13]  Anne Maass,et al.  Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research. , 1984 .

[14]  Erich Kirchler,et al.  The influence of member status differences and task type on group consensus and member position change , 1986 .

[15]  J. Darley,et al.  A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. , 1983 .

[16]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. , 1963 .

[17]  A. Maass,et al.  Social categorization in minority influence: The case of homosexuality , 1988 .

[18]  B. Latané,et al.  The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities. , 1981 .

[19]  L. Resnick,et al.  Social foundations of cognition. , 1993, Annual review of psychology.

[20]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. , 1985 .

[21]  G. Mugny,et al.  When rigidity does not fail: Individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations , 1980 .

[22]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Minority Influence, Divergent Thinking and Detection of Correct Solutions , 1987 .