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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sigall, H. Articles by Mosso, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Minority Influence is Facilitated When the Communication Employs Linguistic Abstractness

University of Maryland

Angelica Mucchi-Faina

Università di Perugia

Cristina Mosso

Università di Torino

An experiment tested the hypothesis that minority influence is enhanced when the source of a persuasive communication employs abstract, as opposed to concrete, language. This hypothesis and the research testing it links ideas from two heretofore separate areas of inquiry: minority influence and linguistic abstraction.

It is well known that minority influence increases when the minority is perceived to be consistent. Work on linguistic abstraction has established that when abstract language is used to describe an act, it implies that the act reflects stable, trans-situational characteristics of the actor, whereas concrete language implies that the act reflects isolated, situationally bounded events. We suggest that abstract language therefore conveys greater conviction and thereby increases perceived consistency and, in turn, minority influence.

Source (majority, minority) and language abstractness (abstract, concrete) of a persuasive communication were manipulated. Results revealed that a minority (but not a majority) source was seen as more consistent when using abstract (vs. concrete) language. Although there were no differences among conditions on direct influence, a statistically significant interaction was observed for indirect influence: the abstract-minority source had significantly more indirect influence than did the concrete-minority source, whereas the indirect influence of the majority communicator was not affected by language abstractness.

Key Words: indirect influence • linguistic abstraction • minority influence

References

• 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 .[CrossRef]
• Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Crano, W. D., & Alvaro, E. M. (1998). 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 .
• 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]
• Erb, H., Bohner, G., Schmaelzle, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 620–633 .[Abstract]
• Forgas, J. P., & Williams, K. D. (Eds.). (2001). Social influence: Direct and indirect processes. Sidney: Routledge .
• Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotypes perpetuation through the language. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 1–30). New York: Academic Press .
• Maass, A., & Clark, R. (1987). Hidden impact of minorities: Fifteen years of minority influence research . Psychological Bulletin, 95, 428–450 .
• Maass, A., Milesi, A., Zabbini, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1995). Linguistic intergroup bias: differential expectancies or in-group protection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512–526 .
• Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press .
• Mucchi-Faina, A. (1994). Minority influence effects: Assimilation and differentiation. In S. Moscovici, A. Mucchi-Faina, & A. Maas (Eds.), Minority influence. Chicago: Nelson-Hall .
• Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. London: Academic Press .
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag .
• Rubini, M., & Sigall, H. (2002). Taking the edge off of disagreement: Linguistic abstractness and self-presentation to a heterogeneous audience . European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 343–351 .[CrossRef]
• Semin, G. R. (1998). Cognition, language and communication. In S. R. Fussel & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and cognitive psychological approaches to interpersonal communication(pp. 229–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
• Semin, G. R. (2000). Agenda 2000-Communication: Language as implementational device for cognition . European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 595–612 .[CrossRef]
• Semin, G. R. (2001). Language and social cognition. In A. Tesser & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology. Intraindividual processes(Vol. 1, pp. 159–180). Oxford, UK: Blackwell .
• Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–567 .[CrossRef][ISI]
• Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1989). Relocating attributional phenomena within a language cognition interface: The case of actors' and observers' perspectives . European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 491–508 .
• Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model: Its bases, applications and range. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–30). Chichester, UK: Wiley .
• Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1992). Language, interaction and social cognition. London: Sage .
• Wigboldus, D. H. J., Semin, G. R., & Spears, R. (2000). How do we communicate stereotypes? Linguistic bases and inferential consequences . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 5–18 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• 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 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sigall, H. Articles by Mosso, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?