The effects of majority versus minority source status on persuasion: a self-validation analysis.

The present research proposes that sources in the numerical majority (vs. minority) can affect persuasion by influencing the confidence with which people hold their thoughts in response to the persuasive message. Participants received a persuasive message composed of either strong or weak arguments that was presented by a majority or a minority source. Consistent with the self-validation hypothesis, we predicted and found that the majority (vs. minority) status of the source increased the confidence with which recipients held their thoughts. As a consequence, majority (vs. minority) sources increased argument quality effects in persuasion when source status information followed message processing (Experiment 1). In contrast, when the information regarding source status preceded (rather than followed) the persuasive message, it validated the perception of the position advocated, reducing message processing. As a consequence of having more confidence in the position advocated before receiving the message, majority (vs. minority) sources reduced argument quality effects in persuasion (Experiment 2). Finally, Experiment 3 isolated the timing of the source status manipulation, revealing that sources in the numerical majority (vs. minority) can increase or decrease persuasion to strong arguments depending on whether source status is introduced before or after processing the message.

[1]  A. Pratkanis,et al.  The Science of Social Influence : Advances and Future Progress , 2011 .

[2]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Minority influence and innovation: antecedents, processes and consequences , 2010 .

[3]  Roland Imhoff,et al.  What Motivates Nonconformity? Uniqueness Seeking Blocks Majority Influence , 2009, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[4]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach , 2009 .

[5]  Zakary L. Tormala,et al.  The Effects of Minority/Majority Source Status on Attitude Certainty: A Matching Perspective , 2009, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[6]  J. Levine,et al.  The phenomenology of minority–majority status: Effects on innovation in argument generation , 2008 .

[7]  A. Mucchi-Faina,et al.  Minority influence: the role of ambivalence toward the source , 2008 .

[8]  R. Tindale,et al.  Framing of Majority and Minority Source Information in Persuasion When and How "Consensus Implies Correctness" , 2008 .

[9]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Distinguishing between silent and vocal minorities: not all deviants feel marginal. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  Richard E Petty,et al.  Happiness versus sadness as a determinant of thought confidence in persuasion: a self-validation analysis. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  William D. Crano,et al.  Majority and Minority Influence , 2007 .

[12]  Kenneth G. DeMarree,et al.  The Effect of Self-Affirmation in Nonthreatening Persuasion Domains: Timing Affects the Process , 2007, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[13]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  MULTIPLE ROLES FOR SOURCE CREDIBILITY UNDER HIGH ELABORATION: IT'S ALL IN THE TIMING , 2007 .

[14]  R. Petty,et al.  Resisting Persuasion by Illegitimate Means: A Metacognitive Perspective on Minority Influence , 2007, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[15]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Systematic and Heuristic Processing of Majority and Minority-Endorsed Messages: The Effects of Varying Outcome Relevance and Levels of Orientation on Attitude and Message Processing , 2007, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[16]  G. Bohner,et al.  Large Minorities and Small Majorities: Interactive Effects of Inferred and Explicit Consensus on Attitudes , 2006 .

[17]  Richard E Petty,et al.  Discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-concepts: Consequences for information processing. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  C. Judd,et al.  When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  Robin Martin,et al.  Group Consensus in Social Influence: Type of Consensus Information as a Moderator of Majority and Minority Influence , 2005, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[20]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[21]  R. Sorrentino,et al.  Minority Versus Majority Influence and Uncertainty Orientation: Processing Persuasive Messages on the Basis of Situational Expectancies , 2004, The Journal of social psychology.

[22]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Resistance to persuasive messages as a function of majority and minority source status , 2003 .

[23]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing , 2003 .

[24]  P. Shrout,et al.  Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[25]  R. Petty,et al.  Ease of Retrieval Effects in Persuasion: A Self-Validation Analysis , 2002 .

[26]  Richard E Petty,et al.  Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: the self-validation hypothesis. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  S. West,et al.  A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[28]  L. Tiedens,et al.  Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: the effects of specific emotions on information processing. , 2001, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[29]  Sabine A. Einwiller,et al.  Accuracy Motivation, Consensus Information, and the Law of Large Numbers: Effects on Attitude Judgment in the Absence of Argumentation , 1998 .

[30]  W. Crano,et al.  The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. , 1998 .

[31]  Gerd Bohner,et al.  Beyond Conflict and Discrepancy: Cognitive Bias in Minority and Majority Influence , 1998 .

[32]  Jill A. Jacobson,et al.  Causal uncertainty beliefs and diagnostic information seeking. , 1997 .

[33]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Selective Use of Heunrstic and Systematic Processing Under Defense Motivation , 1997 .

[34]  D. Wackerly,et al.  On Rank Transformation Techniques for Balanced Incomplete Repeated-Measures Designs , 1996 .

[35]  Bell,et al.  Ambivalence and Persuasion: The Processing of Messages about Immigrant Groups , 1996, Journal of experimental social psychology.

[36]  P. Legrenzi,et al.  Majority and minority influence, task representation and inductive reasoning , 1996 .

[37]  G. Moskowitz.  The mediational effects of attributions and information processing in minority social influence , 1996 .

[38]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. , 1995 .

[39]  R. Petty,et al.  Source Attributions and Persuasion: Perceived Honesty as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny , 1995 .

[40]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1995 .

[41]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Majority and minority influence : source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny , 1994 .

[42]  W. Wood,et al.  Minority influence: a meta-analytic review of social influence processes. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[43]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[44]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[45]  M. Trost,et al.  Minority influence: Personal relevance biases cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance , 1992 .

[46]  Gabriel Mugny,et al.  The Social Psychology of Minority Influence , 1991 .

[47]  J. J. Higgins,et al.  An Investigation of the Type I Error and Power Properties of the Rank Transform Procedure in Factorial ANOVA , 1989 .

[48]  D. Watson,et al.  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[49]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

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

[51]  G. Clore,et al.  Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. , 1983 .

[52]  Anne Maass,et al.  Internalization versus compliance: Differential processes underlying minority influence and conformity , 1983 .

[53]  R. Iman,et al.  Rank Transformations as a Bridge between Parametric and Nonparametric Statistics , 1981 .

[54]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. , 1979 .

[55]  Robert S. Baron,et al.  Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification , 1976 .

[56]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Social Comparison Processes , 1954 .

[57]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  PERSUASION: INSIGHTS FROM THE SELF VALIDATION HYPOTHESIS , 2009 .

[58]  Christine M. Smith.  Adding minority status to a source of conflict: an examination of influence processes and product quality in dyads , 2008 .

[59]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Majority versus minority influence: the role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion , 2008 .

[60]  M. Hewstone,et al.  Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The Source-Context-Elaboration Model. , 2008 .

[61]  C. Dreu.  Minority dissent, attitude change, and group performance , 2007 .

[62]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  11. The role of metacognition in social judgment , 2007 .

[63]  R. Petty,et al.  Implicit ambivalence from attitude change: an exploration of the PAST model. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[64]  Carsten K. W. De Dreu,et al.  Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation. , 2001 .

[65]  Gary H. McClelland,et al.  Nasty data: Unruly, ill-mannered observations can ruin your analysis. , 2000 .

[66]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. , 1998 .

[67]  E. Higgins,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. , 1996 .

[68]  S. Alexander Haslam,et al.  The message of social psychology: Perspectives on mind in society. , 1997 .

[69]  R. Petty,et al.  Attitude strength : antecedents and consequences , 1995 .

[70]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[71]  C. Steele.  The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self , 1988 .

[72]  C. Nemeth.  Differential contributions of majority and minority influence , 1986 .

[73]  S. Moscovici.  Social influence and conformity , 1985 .

[74]  D. Mook,et al.  In defense of external invalidity. , 1983 .

[75]  Serge Moscovici,et al.  Toward A Theory of Conversion Behavior , 1980 .

[76]  S. Asch.  Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. , 1956 .

[77]  Daniel Katz.  Handbook of Social Psychology. , 1955 .