This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Crano, W. D. Articles by Alvaro, E. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Indirect Minority Influence: The Leniency Contract Revisited

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

References

• 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). London: Wiley.
• Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1996). Cognitive responses to minority or majority-based communications: Factors that underlie minority influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 105-121.
• Alvaro, E. M., & Crano, W. D. (1997). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counter argumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949-964.[CrossRef]
• Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• 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.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11, 150-164.
• Brewer, M. B., & Crano, W. D. (1994). Social psychology. Minneapolis/St Paul, MN: West Publishers.
• 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.[CrossRef]
• 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: Erlbaum.
• Clark, R. D., III, & Maass, A. (1988). Social categorization in minority influence: The case of homosexuality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 347-364.
• Crano, W. D. (1994). Context, comparison, and change: Methodological and theoretical contributions to a theory of minority (and majority) influence. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maass (Eds.), Minority influence. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
• Crano, W. D. (1995). Attitude strength and vested interest. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. The Ohio State University series in attitudes and persuasion (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Crano, W. D., & Alvaro, E. M. (1998). The context/comparison model of social influence: Mechanisms, structure, and linkages that underlie indirect attitude change. In M. Hewstone & W. Strobe (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 8). Chichester: Wiley.
• Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Principles and methods of social research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
• 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.[CrossRef]
• Crano, W. D., & Hannula-Bral, K. A. (1994). Context/categorization model of social influence: Minority and majority influence in the formation of a novel response norm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 247-276.
• De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1993). Numerical support, information processing, and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 647-662.
• De Dreu, C. K. W., & De Vries, N. K. (1996). Differential processing and attitude change following majority and minority arguments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 77-90.[ISI]
• Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influence upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.
• Fazio, R. H., Blascovich, J., & Driscoll, D. M. (1992). On the functional value of attitudes: The influence of accessible attitudes on the ease and quality of decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 388-401.[Abstract]
• Festinger, L. (1953). An analysis of compliance behavior. In M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads. New York: Harper.
• Fink, E. L., & Kaplowitz, S. A. (1993). Oscillation in beliefs and cognitive networks. In G. A. Barnett & W. Richards (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 12, pp. 247-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Gerard, H. B. (1985). When and how the minority prevails. In S. Moscovici, G. Mugny, & E. Van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 171-186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
• Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications. London: Routledge.
• Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
• Jones, E. E., Wood, G. C., & Quattrone, G. A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 523-528.[Abstract]
• Judd, C. M., Drake, R. A., Downing, J. W., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Some dynamic properties of attitude structures: Context-induced response facilitation and polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 193-202.[CrossRef]
• Judd, C. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1988). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: Effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In A. R. Pratkanis, S.J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 99-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three process of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51-60.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Mackie, D. M. (1990). Majority and minority influence: Ajudgmental process analysis. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 229-261). London: Wiley.
• McGuire, W. J. (1990). Dynamic operations of thought systems. American Psychologist, 45, 504-512.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1991). The content, structure, and operation of thought systems. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T. Srull (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 4, pp. 1-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Mackie, D. M. (1987). Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 41-52.[CrossRef]
• Marques, J. M., & Paez, D. (1994). The black sheep effect: Social categorization, rejection of in-group deviates and perception of group variability. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37-68.
• Marques, J. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards in-group members in inter- and intra-group situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287-292.
• Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J-P. (1988). The `black sheep effect': Extremity of judgments towards in-group members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.
• 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.
• Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 347-412). New York: Random House.
• Moscovici, S., & Mugny, G. (1983). Minority influence. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 41-64). New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nemeth, C. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273-291.
• Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. (1987). Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of correct solutions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 786-797.
• Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1987). Paradoxical effects of categorization in minority influence: When being an out-group is an advantage. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 157-169.
• Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1990). Minority influence: Manifest discrimination and latent influence. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. London: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
• Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1992). Social impact of experts and minorities, and smoking cessation. In M. Von Cranach, W. Doise, & G. Mugny (Eds.), Social representations and the social bases of knowledge: Proceedings of the 1st Congress of the Swiss Society of Psychology.Bern: Huber.
• Perez, J. A., Mugny, G., Butera, F., Kaiser, C., & Roux, P. (1994). Integrating minority and majority influence: Conversion, consensus, and uniformity. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maass (Eds.), Minority influence. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Powell, M. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). Attitude accessibility as a function of repeated attitudinal expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 139-148.[Abstract]
• Quattrone, G. A. (1986). On the perception of a group's variability. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 24-48). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
• Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141-152.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Schiffman, S. S., Reynolds, M. L., & Young, F. W. (1981). Introduction to multidimensional scaling: Theory, methods, and applications. New York: Academic Press.
• Schutte, R. A., & Fazio, R. (1995). Attitude accessibility and motivation as determinants of biased processing: A test of the MODE model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 704-710.[Abstract]
• Simon, B., & Brown, R. (1987). Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority/majority contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 703-711.[CrossRef][ISI]
• Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Volpato, C., Maass, A., Mucchi-Faina, A., & Vitti, E. (1990). Minority influence and social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 119-132.
• Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Ouellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Processes of minority influence: Influence effectiveness and source perceptions. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323-345.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Wood, W., Pool, G. J., Leck, K., & Purvis, D. (1996). Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: The normative impact of majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1181-1193.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Worchel, S., Grossman, M., & Coutant, D. (1994). Minority influence in the group context: How group factors affect when the minority will be influential. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maass (Eds.), Minority influence (pp. 97-114). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Crano, W. D. Articles by Alvaro, E. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?