Towards an integration of different approaches to social influence: from thought-listing to source-message evaluation
Published:
Nov 7, 2024
Keywords:
social influence, thoughtlist, source-message evaluation, psychologisation, denial
Abstract
The present paper aims to contribute to a convergence of two distinct approaches to social influence, one based on persuasion literature, and one based on the genetic model of social influence. Moreover, the goal is to disentangle the conditions that affect the complex relations among source status (majority vs. minority), kind of influence (direct vs. indirect), type of argumentation (strong vs. weak), and psychological processes (cognitive processing vs. comparison validation elaboration). In both experiments source status and argument quality were manipulated, and a third independent variable was introduced, the introduction (or not) of a thought listing task (Experiment 1), and the introduction of differential psychological process, cognitive processing (via a thought listing task) vs. comparison validation elaboration (via a source-message evaluation) (Experiment 2). Analyses showed that, in Experiment 1, the no-thought list conditions led to greater direct influence whereas the thought listing conditions led to greater indirect influence. Also, minority influence was greater than majority influence. In Experiment 2, only in the thought-listing conditions, as in Experiment 1, strong arguments led to greater direct influence than weak arguments; for indirect influence significant results were found for minority source only: weak arguments were more influential in thought listing condition than source-message evaluation condition and strong arguments in source-message evaluation condition. These findings are discussed in the light of bringing together two distinct thus far approaches to social influence.
Article Details
- How to Cite
-
Papastamou, S., Prodromitis, G., & Gardikiotis, A. (2024). Towards an integration of different approaches to social influence: from thought-listing to source-message evaluation. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 29(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.34599
- Section
- RESEARCH PAPERS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal PSYCHOLOGY adopts a Platinum open-access policy. Submission, processing or publication costs are waived by the Hellenic Psychological Society. Papers published in the journal PSYCHOLOGY are licensed under a 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International' licence. The authors reserve the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of its first publication. Third-party licensees are allowed to use the published paper immediately after publication as they wish, provided they retain the defined by the license copyright formalities, regarding the reference to its author(s) and its initial publication in the journal PSYCHOLOGY. Moreover, any adjusted work should be shared under the same reuse rights, so with the same CC license.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Alvaro, E.M., & Crano, W.D. (1977). Indirect minority influence: Evidence for leniency in source evaluation and counter argumentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 949-964. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.949
Areni, C.S., & Lutz, R.J. (1988). The role of Argument Quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 197-203.
Baker, S.M., & Petty, R.E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.5
Brinnol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of social Psychology, 20, 49-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280802643640
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance of attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
Chaiken, S., & Stangor,C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.003043
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought: Limits of awareness, intention and thought (pp. 212-252). Guilford Press.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds), Dual process theoris in social psychology (pp. 73-96). Guilford Press.
Clark, R.D. III, & Maass, A. (1988). Social categorization in minority influence: The case of homosexuality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 347-364. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180405
Crano, W.D., & Alvaro, E.M. (1998). The context/comparison model of social influence: Mechanism, structure, and linkages that underlie indirect attitude change. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, (Vol.8, pp. 175-202). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779643000119
Crano, W.D., & Chen, X. (1998). The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1437-1450. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1437
De Dreu, C.K.W., & De Vries, N.K. (1996). Differential processing and attribute change following majority and minority arguments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 77-90.
De Vries, N.K., De Dreu, C.K.W., Gordijn, E., & Schumman, M. (1996). Majority and minority influence : A dual interpretation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (EDs.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 145-172). Wiley.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1984), Cognitive Theories of Persuasion. In. :. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17 (pp. 267-359). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60122-7.
Erb, H.-P., & Bohner, G. (2010). Consensus as the key: Towards parsimony in explaining majority and minority influence. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes, and consequences (pp. 79-103). Psychology Press.
Erb,H.-P., Bohner, G., Rank, S., & Einwiller, S. (2002). Processing minority and majority communications: The role of conflict with prior attitudes. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 28, 1172-1182. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812003
Gardikiotis, A., Martin, R., & Hewstone, M.(2005). Group consensus in social influence: Type of consensus information as a moderator of majority and minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1163-1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205277807.
Gardikiotis, A., Martin, R., & Hewstone. M. (2010). The impact of source consensus on majority and minority influence. In R, Martin & Hewstone, M.(Eds), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes, and consequences (pp.153-174). Psychology Press.
Glaser, T., Dickel, N., Liersch, B., Rees, J., Sussenbach, P., Bohner, G. (2015). Lateral Attitude Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314546489
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
Johnson,B.T., & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290
Johnson B.T, Maio G.R, & Smith-McLallen A. (2005). Communication and attitude change: Causes, processes, and effects. In: D. Albarracín, B.T. Johnson , & M.P. Zanna (Eds). Handbook of attitudes. Erlbaum.
Kerr, N.L. (2002). When is a minority a minority? Active versus passive minority advocacy and social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 471-483. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.103
Krosnick, J.A., & Petty, R.E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R.E. Petty & J.A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1-24). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Maass, A., & Clark, R.D. III (1986). Conversion theory and simultaneously majority/minority influence: Can reactance offer an alternative explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 305-309. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420160307
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Determinants and consequences of cognitive processes in majority and minority influence. In. J. Forgas, & K. Williams (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 315-330). Psychology Press.
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 313-330. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.146
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2008). Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change: The source-context elaboration model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 237-326). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00005-6
Martin, R., & Hewstone, M.(Eds.) (2010), Minority Influence and Innovation: Antecedents, processes, and consequences. Psychology Press. https:doi.org/10.4324/9780203865552
Martin, R., Gardikiotis, A., & Hewstone, M. (2002). Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 645-665. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.113
Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P.Y. (2008). Majority versus minority influence: The role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 16-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.426
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209-239). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60133-1
Moscovici, S. (1985). Innovation and minority influence. In S, Moscovici, G, Mugny, & E. van Avermaet (Eds.), Perspectives on minority influence (pp. 9-51). Cambrige, Cambridge University Press. https:doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511897566.003
Moscovici S., Mugny G. & Papastamou S. (1981). «"Sleeper effect" et/ou effet minoritaire? Étude théorique et expérimentale de l’ influence sociale à retardement», Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 1, 199-221.
Mugny, G. (1982). The power of minorities. Academic Press.
Mugny, G., & Papastamou, S. (1980). When rigidity does not fail: individualization and psychologization as resistances to the diffusion of minority innovations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10,43-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420100104
Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1991). The social psychology of minority influence. Cambridge University Press, Paris: L.E.P.S.
Nemeth, C.J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23-32. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23
Papastamou, S (1983). Strategies of minority and majority influence. W.Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds). Current issues in European social psychology, 1, 33-83 Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Papastamou, S. (1986). Psychologization and processes of minority and majority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420160205
Papastamou S. (1993). Valeur stratégique et émergence de la psychologisation comme résistance à l:innovation. In J.L. Beauvois, R.-V. Joule, &M. Monteil (Eds), Perspectives cognitive et conduites sociales, IV (pp. 175-194). Cousset-DelVal.
Papastamou, S., & Mugny, G. (1990). Synchronic consistency and psychologization in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420200202
Papastamou, S, Gardikiotis, A, & Prodromitis, G. (Eds) (2017a). Majority and Minority Influence: Societal Meaning and Cognitive Elaboration., Rowtledge.
Papastamou, S. Gardikiotis, A, & Prodromitis, G (2017b). Conversion to active minorities: the chronicle of a successful theory and the uncertain result of a minority influence attempt. In S. Papastamou, A. Gardikiotis, & G. Prodromitis (Eds), Majority and Minority Influence: Societal Meaning and Cognitive Elaboration. (pp. 9-56). Rowtledge.
Pérez, J.A., Mugny, G. (1996).The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. Witte & J. Davis (Eds), Understanding group behavior (vol. 2), Small group processes and interpersonal relations Mahwah, (pp. 191-210). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pérez, J.A., Mugny, G., & Moscovici, S. (1986). Les effets paradoxaux du déni dans l’influence sociale. Cahiers de Psychologie Sociale, 32, 1-14.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Issue Involvement As a Moderator of the Effects on Attitude of Advertising Content and Context. In K. B. Monroe, & A.Abor, NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 08, : Association for Consumer Research (pp. 20-24).
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R.E., & Wegner, D.T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 37-72). Guilford Press.
Petty, R.E., Hangtvedt, C.P.,& Smith, S.M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant and predictive of behavior. In R.E. Petty & J.A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 93-130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847-855. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Effects of Rhetorical Questions on Persuasion: A Cognitive Response Analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81-92. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.432
Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T.M., & Brock, T.C. (Eds). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Erlbaum.
Quiamzade, A., Mugny, G., Falomir-Pichastor, J.M., & Butera, F. (2010). The complexity of majority versus minority influence processes. In R. Martin & M. Hewstone (Eds), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes and consequences (pp. 21-52). Psychology Press.
Stroebe, W. (2010). Majority and minority influence and information processing: A theoretical and -methodological analysis. In R. Martin, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Minority influence and innovation: Antecedents, processes and consequences (pp. 201-225). Psychology Press.
Trost, M.R., Maass, A., & Kenrick, D.T. (1992). Minority influence: Personal relevance biases cognitive processes and reverses private acceptance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 234-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90054-N
