Group Consensus in Social Influence: Type of Consensus Information as a Moderator of Majority and Minority Influence

Gardikiotis, Antonis; Martin, Robin; Hewstone, Miles

doi:10.1177/0146167205277807

Cited by 31 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, and concerning potential influence on self, strong (vs. weak) arguments led to greater (perceived) influence in the minority condition only (supporting Hypothesis 2), replicating similar patterns of results found in studies of actual social influence (e.g. Gardikiotis et al, 2005;Martin et al, 2002). It seems that participants follow a validation process characterized by greater thinking and elaboration when they face an influential attempt by a minority source or when they estimate the potential influence by a minority source.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…These estimates seem to depend on the different socio-cognitive processes that underlie majority and minority influence: people facing a minority source are following a validation process (Martin & Hewstone, 2005;Moscovici, 1985;Mugny et al, 1995), and hence, they differentiate between messages of varying argument quality (when they estimate potential influence, Experiment 1). The same process seems to be responsible for the data of actual influence in Experiment 2.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The topic of the influential message was the "legalization of voluntary euthanasia," which has been used in previous studies (e.g. Gardikiotis, Martin & Hewstone, 2005;Martin, Gardikiotis & Hewstone, 2002). The text presenting a fictitious national survey of students on the topic of voluntary euthanasia comprised six arguments (strong or weak depending on the condition) against voluntary euthanasia.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If people differentiate between strong and weak arguments (an indication of greater message elaboration), they will think that they will be more influenced than others by strong arguments. This pattern of findings will be more likely in the minority condition (Hypothesis 2), where people are expected to exert considerable cognitive effort to understand the minority's message (Martin & Hewstone, 2005;Moscovici, 1985;Mugny et al, 1995). So, when only majority and minority status is examined, it is hypothesized that participants will show the third-person effect bias (Hypothesis 1).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In this situation, Martin and Hewstone propose that conversion theory should apply (see also Mugny et al 1995) -that is, extensive processing will underlie the minority arguments only (see Martin & Hewstone, 2003;Martin, Hewstone, et al, 2007). All in all, people are motivated to move toward the majority and away from the minority, but are more inclined to think more closely about the minority position because of its distinctiveness, consistency and active action (for a comprehensive review of the factors that affect minority versus majority groups, see Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme & Blackstone, 1994; see also Crano & Hannula-Bral, 1994;Gardikiotis, 2011).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

I Think Therefore I Am (Influenced): Perceptions of Social Influence on Self and Others

Gardikiotis

2017

rips

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research focuses on people's perceptions and explanations of majority and minority influence, and on the socio-cognitive processes that underlie them. Two experimental studies (Ns = 89, 139) examined the effects of source status (majority vs. minority) and message quality (strong vs. weak arguments) on perceptions of influence on self and others, explanations for this influence and message elaboration. An estimation of potential (and actual) influence on self and other recipients was examined and an expected bias in perception was evident, others were thought to be influenced more than the self (i.e. a thirdperson perception). These perceptions depended on the greater message elaboration instigated by a minority (vs. majority) source. The reasons people offer about the potential (or actual) influence were also examined -in particular, people's thoughts about the influential message and source's status (i.e. the information that they receive a message by a majority or a minority influence). Results showed that thinking as an explanation of influence is more important for a majority (vs. a minority) message and this does not depend on actual cognitive elaboration but rather on self-serving processes. Overall, the results show that thinking as an underlying process of, or as an account for, influence is differentially connected with majority and minority source. These findings contribute to our understanding of perceptions and explanations of social influence and of their underlying socio-cognitive processes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

I Think Therefore I Am (Influenced): Perceptions of Social Influence on Self and Others

Gardikiotis

2017

rips

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Being the same and different: A model explaining new product adoption

Timmor

Katz–Navon

2008

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study suggests an alternative conceptualization for understanding adoption behavior over time, based on Optimal Distinctiveness Theory. This theory states that social identity derives from a fundamental tension between human needs for validation and similarity to others-the need for assimilation-and a countervailing need for uniqueness and individuation-the need for differentiation. The present study proposes that the effect of the size of the group of consumers who have already adopted a new product on an individual consumer's decision to adopt this product is contingent upon the consumer's two predispositions: the need for assimilation and the need for distinctiveness. Results of empirical research suggested that differently perceived subgroup sizes fulfill consumers' dual needs for distinctiveness and assimilation differently. The influence of the adopters' group size on a consumer's decision to adopt a new product varied among individuals with different levels of needs for distinctiveness and assimilation: when need for distinctiveness was low, the higher was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the higher was the probability of adopting the product. When the need for distinctiveness was high, the lower was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the lower was the probability of adopting the product. In addition, when the need for both distinctiveness and assimilation were high, the probability of adopting the product rose as the perceived group size increased. Implications for product variation, marketing communication, and target groups are discussed.

show abstract

Majority versus minority influence: the role of message processing in determining resistance to counter‐persuasion

Martin

Hewstone

Martin

2007

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined the extent to which attitudes changed following majority and minority influence are resistant to counter-persuasion. In both experiments participants' attitudes were measured after being exposed to two messages, delayed in time, which argued opposite positions (initial message and counter-message). In the first experiment, attitudes following minority endorsement of the initial message were more resistant to a second counter-message only when the initial message contained strong versus weak arguments. Attitudes changed following majority influence did not resist the second counter-message and returned to their pre-test level. Experiment 2 varied whether memory was warned (i.e., message recipients expected to recall the message) or not, to manipulate message processing. When memory was warned, which should increase message processing, attitudes changed following both majority and minority influence resisted the second counter-message. The results support the view that minority influence instigates systematic processing of its arguments, leading to attitudes that resist counter-persuasion. Attitudes formed following majority influence yield to counter-persuasion unless there is a secondary task that encourages message processing.

show abstract

Group Consensus in Social Influence: Type of Consensus Information as a Moderator of Majority and Minority Influence

Cited by 31 publications

References 52 publications

I Think Therefore I Am (Influenced): Perceptions of Social Influence on Self and Others

I Think Therefore I Am (Influenced): Perceptions of Social Influence on Self and Others

Being the same and different: A model explaining new product adoption

Majority versus minority influence: the role of message processing in determining resistance to counter‐persuasion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About