Majority and minority influence, task representation and inductive reasoning

Butera, Fabrizio; Mugny, Gabriel; Legrenzi, Paolo; Pérez, Juan Antonio

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01087.x

Cited by 43 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Research has found that minorities more than majorities tend to activate a falsification (vs. confirmation) approach to hypothesis testing (Butera & Buchs, in press;Butera & Mugny 2001;Butera, Mugny, Legrenzi, & Pérez, 1996;Legrenzi, Butera, Mugny, & Pérez, 1991). We suspect that (high vs. low) personal relevance might encourage the falsification strategy in different ways.…”

Section: Divergence Vs Ambivalence In Minority Influence 101mentioning

confidence: 90%

Divergence vs. ambivalence: effects of personal relevance on minority influence

Mucchi‐Faina

Cicoletti

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the literature on social influence, a minority source can induce two main cognitive processes: validation and divergence. The aim of the present study was to determine if the two processes are jointly or alternatively activated. We hypothesized that the process stimulated by the minority source would be different according to the personal relevance of the issue for the participants. Specifically, we predicted that a minority would induce more validation (i.e. ambivalent thoughts about the issue) in the low relevance condition rather than in the high relevance condition. On the other hand, the minority would produce more divergence (i.e. alternative proposals) in the high relevance condition rather than in the low relevance condition. Two experiments in which the participants were exposed to a counter-attitudinal message of a minority or a majority supported these predictions. Moreover, in Study 1 evidence has also been found that a minority source fosters more pertinent (but not more original) proposals in the high relevance condition rather than in the low relevance condition, whereas in Study 2 ambivalence (other than divergence) appeared to be correlated with, but not a significant mediator of, indirect influence. The implications of these findings for minority influence theory are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Divergence Vs Ambivalence In Minority Influence 101mentioning

confidence: 90%

Divergence vs. ambivalence: effects of personal relevance on minority influence

Mucchi‐Faina

Cicoletti

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But, at the same time, complementarity between partners legitimates reliance on the partner and would enhance cooperation (Gruber, 2000). Findings reported in the social influence literature indicate that decentering, or presenting knowledge as a coordination of complementary points of view, can enhance learning (Butera & Buchs, in press;Butera, Mugny, & Buchs, 2001;Butera, Mugny, Legrenzi, & Pérez, 1996). Moreover, Cohen and Cohen (1991) suggested that such reciprocal dependence involves recognition of the need to exchange information, and thus enhances the level of interaction between partners.…”

Section: Complementary Information Interactions and Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Resource interdependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning

Buchs

Butera

Mugny

2004

Educational Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies were carried out during university workshops, and analyzed the effects of resource interdependence on student-student interactions, and the impact of these interactions on performance. Students worked cooperatively, either on complementary information (positive resource interdependence) or on identical information (resource independence). In Study 1, analysis of videotaped interactions revealed that working on complementary information produced more positive interactions; however this was not sufficient to prevent students who had no direct access to the information from being disadvantaged, because of informational dependence. In Study 2, with simpler texts allowing better information transmission, performance was favored when students worked on complementary information. Moreover, working on identical information not only enhanced confrontations of point of views, it also elicited competence threat. Further analysis revealed that competence threat mediated resource interdependence effect on performance. Discussion provides insights into the conditions in which different cooperative methods can benefit learning.

show abstract

“…In one study, for instance, Trost, Maass, and Kenrick (1992) manipulated the extent of thinking with a personal relevance induction and found greater evidence of biased processing of minority messages when participants found the message to be high rather than low in personal relevance (see also Martin et al, 2007). 1 Finally, when thinking has not been constrained by other variables to be high or low, source status has affected how much thinking people have done about the message (e.g., Baker & Petty, 1994;De Dreu, 2007;Mackie, 1987;Martin et al, 2007) or what type of thinking has been done (e.g., Butera, Mugny, Legrenzi, & Pérez, 1996;Kenworthy, Hewstone, Levine, Martin, & Willis, 2008;Mucchi-Faina & Pagliaro, 2008;Nemeth, 1986Nemeth, , 1995Smith, 2008). As noted earlier, Moscovici (1980Moscovici ( , 1985 was the first to advance the notion that minority influence can involve greater message processing than does majority influence, and numerous researchers have provided some evidence for this view (e.g., Crano & Chen, 1998;Maass & Clark, 1983;Moskowitz, 1996).…”

Section: Multiple Processes Of Majority/minority Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Horcajo¹,

Petty²,

Briñol³

2010

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Majority and minority influence, task representation and inductive reasoning

Cited by 43 publications

References 19 publications

Divergence vs. ambivalence: effects of personal relevance on minority influence

Divergence vs. ambivalence: effects of personal relevance on minority influence

Resource interdependence, student interactions and performance in cooperative learning

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About