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

Abstract

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.

Differentiating Act from Ideology: Evidence from Messages For and Against Violent Extremism

“…Early research on persuasive communication has typically examined the impact of pro‐ and counter‐messages that varied, for example, in message strength and target involvement (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). More recent work has continued this tradition by examining how the impact of pro‐ and counter‐messages are mediated by factors outside of the message itself (e.g., the majority vs. minority status of the source; Martin et al., 2007). This “opposites” conceptualization is endemic in the literature and appears in other research areas where persuasion might be seen to play a role.…”

“…The growth in studies of messages promoting violence has not been matched by a growth in studies examining “counter‐messages” that denounce such acts. There is some experimental research examining the extent to which attitude change is resistant to, or can be inoculated against, individual counter‐arguments (Martin, Hewstone, & Martin, 2007; Tormala, Clarkson, & Petty, 2006). However, this experimental research focuses more on the contextual variables (e.g., source status) that mediate the influence of counter‐messages than on the ideological or persuasive content of such messages.…”

Socially rejected while cognitively successful? The impact of minority dissent on groups’ cognitive complexity

“…Considerable empirical evidence shows that minority influence fosters divergent thinking and innovation in groups (De Dreu & West, 2001; Martin & Hewstone, 2003; Van Dyne & Saavedra, 1996) and can induce attitude change (Martin, Hewstone, & Martin, 2008). Although minority dissent was initially explored as a group process, most of the empirical evidence on the effects of minority dissent comes from a non‐interaction paradigm (Martin & Hewstone, 2008; Smith, 2008).…”

In the name of God: How children and adults judge agents who act for religious versus secular reasons

“…While children and adults are both susceptible to majority influence under some circumstances (Harris, 2012; Haun, van Leeuwen, & Edelson, 2013), adults have also developed strategies that allow them to resist such influence. For example, strong moral bases for one's attitudes (Aramovich, Lytle, & Skitka, 2012; Hornsey, Majkut, Terry, & McKimmie, 2003) and exposure to minority views (Martin, Hewstone, & Martin, 2008) allow adults to resist the influence of majority views.…”