Systematic and Heuristic Processing of Majority and Minority-Endorsed Messages: The Effects of Varying Outcome Relevance and Levels of Orientation on Attitude and Message Processing

Abstract

Two experiments investigated the conditions under which majority and minority sources instigate systematic processing of their messages. Both experiments crossed source status (majority vs. minority) with message quality (strong vs. weak arguments). In each experiment, message elaboration was manipulated by varying either motivational (outcome relevance, Experiment 1) or cognitive (orientating tasks, Experiment 2) factors. The results showed that when either motivational or cognitive factors encouraged low message elaboration, there was heuristic acceptance of the majority position without detailed message processing. When the level of message elaboration was intermediate, there was message processing only for the minority source. Finally, when message elaboration was high, there was message processing for both source conditions. These results show that majority and minority influence is sensitive to motivational and cognitive factors that constrain or enhance message elaboration and that both sources can lead to systematic processing under specific circumstances.

Mood, source characteristics, and message processing: A mood-congruent expectancies approach

“…Various source characteristics such as likability, trustworthiness, expertise, and consensus status have been shown to affect attitudes directly when ability and / or motivation for argument processing are low as a result of non-mood factors (Chaiken, 1980;Eagly, Wood & Chaiken, 1978;Martin, Hewstone, & Martin, 2007;Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). More precisely, a positive value of these factors (i.e., a likable, trustworthy, expert or majority source) leads to more attitudinal agreement than a negative value (i.e., a dislikable, untrustworthy, nonexpert or minority source).…”

“…For instance, research has found higher message scrutiny in the case of an expert (vs. a nonexpert) source, a minority (vs. a majority) source, and a dishonest (vs. an honest) source (e.g. Heesacker, Petty, & Cacioppo, 1983;Martin et al, 2007;Priester & Petty, 1995). More important, further research has shown that message scrutiny effects of these single source factors are moderated by yet another source factor (Ziegler et al, 2002;Ziegler, Diehl, Zigon & Fett, 2004).…”

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

“…In addition, a thought-listing task was included. Participants were instructed to give the thoughts they had as they were reading the message (Alvaro & Crano, 1997;Baker & Petty, 1994;Martin et al, 2002;Martin & Hewstone, 2003;Martin, Hewstone & Martin, 2007). They could write their thoughts (either pro or against voluntary euthanasia or neutral) in a number of "idea boxes" (one thought per box).…”

“…This proposition, however, has not been accepted without criticism (see for example Mackie's 1987 position that majority leads to greater cognitive elaboration; see also Baker & Petty, 1994). Martin andHewstone (2008, see also Martin &Hewstone, 2003;Martin, Hewstone & Martin, 2007; reconciled previously conflicting results by proposing that both majority and minority can lead to more (or less) thinking depending on the cognitive demands of the influence situation. Most influence situations to which people are exposed are not characterized by very low or very high processing demands; rather, demands are located at an intermediate level.…”

“…Most influence situations to which people are exposed are not characterized by very low or very high processing demands; rather, demands are located at an intermediate level. 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).…”