This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Erb, H.-P. Articles by Rank, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Erb, H.-P. Articles by Rank, S. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Beyond Conflict and Discrepancy: Cognitive Bias in Minority and Majority Influence

University of Wiirzburg, erb{at}psychologi.uniwuerzburg.de

Gerd Bohner

University of Mannheim

Knut Schmilzle

University of Mannheim

Susanne Rank

University of Mannheim

The authors studied effects of majority and minority support on persuasion for nondiscrepant positions. In two experiments, students (N = 188) read messages on previously unknown attitude objects. These messages were attributed to numerical majorities (high consensus) or minorities (low consensus). The results show that consensus information can bias systematic processing of message content. High consensus evoked positively biased cognitive responses that focused on message content (convergent processing), whereas low consensus elicited negatively biased processing that pertained to new aspects of the issue (divergent processing). Post-message attitudes were more positive under high consensus than under low consensus; this effect was mediated via thought valence but not via thought convergence. In Experiment 2, these effects were replicated if consensus information preceded message processing but not if it was presented after message processing. Furthermore, in both experiments, cognitive activity was lower if consensus information was presented (vs. not presented) before the message.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Martin, M. Hewstone, and P. Y. Martin 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 Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 2007; 33(1): 43 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Sigall, A. Mucchi-Faina, and C. Mosso Minority Influence is Facilitated When the Communication Employs Linguistic Abstractness Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2006; 9(3): 443 - 451. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Van Overwalle and F. Siebler A Connectionist Model of Attitude Formation and Change Personality and Social Psychology Review, August 1, 2005; 9(3): 231 - 274. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. Ziegler, M. Diehl, R. Zigon, and T. Fett Source Consistency, Distinctiveness, and Consensus: The Three Dimensions of the Kelley ANOVA Model in Persuasion Pers Soc Psychol Bull, March 1, 2004; 30(3): 352 - 364. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. El-Alayli, E. S. Park, L. A. Messe, and N. L. Kerr Having to Take a Stand: The Interactive Effects of Task Framing and Source Status on Attitudes Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2002; 5(3): 233 - 248. [Abstract] [PDF]