Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Crano, W. D.
Right arrow Articles by Alvaro, E. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 1, No. 2, 99-115 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430298012001

Indirect Minority Influence: The Leniency Contract Revisited

William D. Crano

Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University, Cranow{at}U.Arizona.edu

Eusebio M. Alvaro

Department of Communication, University of Arizona

This research is concerned with indirect minority influence, the change of attitudes that are related, but not identical, to the issue under persuasive attack. A message on one of two linked attitudes was developed and attributed to in-group minority or majority sources. Analysis of source and pretest timing (immediate vs. 2 weeks before treatment), thought to affect the accessibility of the linked attitude, revealed no effect on focal beliefs. However, the linked attitudes of those exposed to the minority differed significantly from those exposed to the majority, and were congruous with the conservative thrust of the persuasive appeal. Pretest timing also affected indirect attitudes (both ps < .05). Implications of these indirect attitude results for minority and majority influence were drawn.

Key Words: indirect influence • leniency contract • minority group influence • pretesteffects • social influence


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?