The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence.

The leniency contract (E. M. Alvaro & W. D. Crano, 1997) explicates a maxim of social influence: Majorities induce public, temporary change, whereas minority influence is indirect and persistent. The contract holds that minority messages are elaborated without derogation or counterargument; in recompense, direct change is repudiated. This response pattern unbalances the constellation of beliefs containing the critical attitude. It is stabilized by modifying related beliefs. These propositions were tested by uncovering links among a set of attitudes and developing persuasive messages on 1 of them. The messages were attributed to majority or in-group minority sources. Strong messages fostered persistent focal attitude change. When attributed to a minority, strong messages induced indirect attitude change, which was associated with delayed focal change. For the majority source, positivity of cognitive responses was related to focal change; for the minority, it was related to indirect change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

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

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny.

Two experiments addressed the issue of whether endorsement of a position by a numerical majority or a minority leads to greater scrutiny of the information presented in a persuasive message. In Exp 1, a counterattitudinal position was endorsed by a majority or a minority and was supported by strong or weak arguments. Argument quality had a larger impact on attitudes with majority than with minority endorsement. In Exp 2, a proattitudinal or a counterattitudinal message was endorsed by a majority or a minority and was supported by strong or weak arguments. When the source and message position were unexpected (i.e., majority-counter and minority-pro messages), argument quality had a larger impact on attitudes than when the source and message position were expected (i.e., majority-pro and minority-counter messages). Thus, either majority or minority endorsement can enhance message scrutiny if the source-position pairing is surprising. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members.

Three experiments revealed a consistent pattern of consensus estimates. Numerical status and group growth or decline were manipulated between subjects. Growth was manipulated orthogonally to a 3rd variable: focus. Focus was manipulated by describing growth information with respect either to the in-group or the out-group (e.g., in-group growth and out-group decline). A Numerical Status?×?Focus interaction emerged in Study 1. Numerical minority members' consensus estimates for an opinion issue increased when growth information was out-group focused, whereas majority members' estimates did not differ as a function of the focus variable. Study 2 replicated these effects across other opinion dimensions. Study 3 confirmed the importance of the growth and focus variables in the absence of numerical status manipulations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group norms and attitude–behavior consistency: The role of group salience and mood.

This study tested the social identity–self-categorization theory reconceptualization of the role of norms in attitude–behavior relations. Specifically, the study investigated how the effects of in-group norms on the relationship between people's attitudes and their behavior vary as a function of the salience of group membership and mood. Participants' (N?=?131) attitudes toward students being responsible for picking up litter on campus grounds were examined. As expected, the effects of the attitudinal congruency of norms varied as a function of group salience under neutral mood (i.e., deliberative processing) conditions. In-group norms were more influential for high-salience individuals than for low salience individuals in a neutral mood. These findings indicate that in-group norms influence behavioral decision making for individuals high in group salience only when there is an opportunity to carefully process the normative information. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice.

The extended contact hypothesis proposes that knowledge that an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes. Proposed mechanisms are the in-group or out-group member serving as positive exemplars and the inclusion of the out-group member's group membership in the self. In Studies 1 and 2, respondents knowing an in-group member with an out-group friend had less negative attitudes toward that out-group, even controlling for dispositional variables and direct out-group friendships. Study 3, with constructed intergroup-conflict situations (on the robbers cave model), found reduced negative out-group attitudes after participants learned of cross-group friendships. Study 4, a minimal group experiment, showed less negative out-group attitudes for participants observing an apparent in-group–out-group friendship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison.

Two studies tested the prediction that the outcome of social comparison will differ depending on whether interpersonal or intergroup comparison processes have been engaged. Results of an experiment in which college students were assigned to membership in a minority or majority social category confirmed the predicted 3-way interaction effect of in-group salience, target group membership, and upward–downward comparison on self-assessments of academic ability. Majority group members exhibited contrast effects in their self-ratings following exposure to a videotape of an in-group member displaying either very high or very low academic competence. Self-evaluations of minority group members revealed assimilation effects in response to in-group comparisons and contrast effects in response to out-group comparisons. In a 2nd follow-up experiment, this in-group assimilation effect was found to be dependent on intergroup contrast. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: The normative impact of majority and minority groups.

Past research has found that recipients agree with majority group positions and resist minority group positions on direct measures of influence. The authors suggest that these attitude shifts reflect normative pressures to align with valued majorities and to differentiate from derogated minorities. In support of this idea, participants who considered a majority group relevant to their own self-definitions (but not those who judged it irrelevant), on learning that the group held a counterattitudinal position, shifted their attitudes to agree with the source. In a second study, recipients who judged a minority group (negatively) self-relevant, on learning that the group held a similar attitude to their own, shifted their attitudes to diverge from the source. These shifts in attitudes were based on participants' interpretations of the attitude issues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Impact of Perceived Consensus on Stereotypes About Obese People: A New Approach for Reducing Bias.

In 3 experiments, the authors tested the effect of perceived social consensus on attitudes toward obese people. Participants completed self-report measures of attitudes toward obese people prior to and after manipulated consensus feedback depicting attitudes of others. In Study 1 (N=60), participants decreased negative and increased positive stereotypes after learning that others held more favorable attitudes toward obese people. In Study 2 (N=55), participants improved attitudes when they learned about favorable attitudes of obese people from an in-group versus an out-group source. In Study 3 (N=200), a consensus approach was compared with other stigma reduction methods. Social consensus feedback influenced participants' attitudes and beliefs about causes of obesity. Providing information about the uncontrollable causes of obesity and supposed scientific prevalence of traits also improved attitudes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Processing of persuasive in-group messages.

Two studies investigated the processes mediating the persuasive impact of messages representing in-group opinions. In the 1st study, Ss read either a strong or a weak message attributed to either an in-group member or to another group. Ss were more persuaded by a strong message from the in-group than a weak one, suggesting content-focused processing of the in-group message. Ss were equally unpersuaded by either a strong or a weak message from the other group, and showed little sign of message processing. In the 2nd study, Ss listened to in-group or other-group messages about issues that varied in their relevance to in-group membership. When the issue was relevant to the in-group, Ss were persuaded by a strong message from the in-group, unpersuaded by a weak message from the in-group, and equally unimpressed by strong and weak messages from the other group. When the issue was irrelevant to the in-group, Ss accepted the position advocated by the in-group regardless of message quality, and again ignored messages from the other group. These results suggest that increased message processing, and not merely the impact of source persuasion cues, can underlie in-group-mediated attitude change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effect of affective reactions by an out-group on preferences for crossed categorization discussion partners.

The authors experimentally examined the effects of positive or negative affect from an out-group (O) on preferences for the 4 crossed categorization targets—in-group–in-group (ii), in-group–outgroup (io), out-group–in-group (oi), and out-group–out-group (oo)—as discussion partners. Study 1 induced affect with compliments; Study 2 used insults; Study 3 cross-culturally assessed the effects of both types of affect. Preferences for the target who possessed a category membership that matched the out-group source of affect on 1 dimension of categorization (Oi) were increased by compliments and decreased by insults. Confirming predictions, positive affect produced a hierarchical rejection pattern (ii?=?Oi?>?io?>?oo). Negative affect produced a hierarchical acceptance pattern (ii?>?io?>?Oi?=?oo). All 3 control conditions yielded an additivity pattern (ii?>?io?=?oi?>?oo). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace.

This study used the minority stress theory to develop models of antecedents and outcomes of heterosexism in the workplace. Heterosexism was assessed via the Workplace Heterosexist Experiences Questionnaire, a new scale assessing direct (e.g., anti-gay jokes) and indirect experiences (e.g., assumptions of heterosexuality). Structural equation modeling with two community samples (N?=?287) of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people indicated that heterosexism was best predicted by perceptions that the employer does not take heterosexism seriously (i.e., organizational climate). Experiencing heterosexism was associated with adverse psychological, health, and job-related outcomes, thus supporting the minority stress theory. In addition, outness was positively related to experiences of direct heterosexism but negatively related to indirect experiences. The minority stress theory is discussed in light of the mental health history of pathologizing homosexuality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes.

A meta-analytic review of 97 minority influence experiments evaluated the processes by which sources advocating deviant, minority opinions exert influence. Minority impact was most marked on measures of influence that were private from the source and indirectly related to the content of the appeal and less evident on direct private influence measures and on public measures. This attenuated impact of minorities on direct private and public measures suggests that in response to normative pressures, recipients avoided aligning themselves with a deviant source. Mediator analyses revealed that minorities perceived as especially consistent in the advocacy of their views were especially influential. The relation between normative and informational pressures in the minority influence paradigm was discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Direct versus indirect suggestions, archaic involvement, and hypnotic experience.

This study examined the effects of direct (Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility: [{hgshs}:{a}]; Shor & Orne, 1962) versus indirect (Alman-Wexler Indirect Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale [{awihss}]; Pratt, Wood, & Alman, 1984) suggestions on arcahaic involvement (Nash & Spinler, in press) with the hypnotists, objective responding, and subjective involvement and involuntariness ratings, when the scales were administered in all possible combinations (direct/indirect, N?=?61; indirect/direct, N?=?61; direct/direct, N?=?57; indirect/indirect, N?=?95), across two sessions. At the initial testing, subjects who received indirect suggestions reported a greater emotional bond with the hypnotist and increased fear of negative appraisal than subjects who received direct suggestions. Repeated testing resulted in response decrements on measures of objective responding, subjective involvement, and involuntariness that were paralled by diminished involvement with the hypnotist. The most stable relation between scales was evident when scales were defined as direct hypnosis across both sessions. Although direct and indirect suggestions produced comparable effects in the first session, in the second session, direct suggestions fostered greater subjective involvement and feelings of involuntariness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Illusory correlation and social categorization: Toward an integration of motivational and cognitive factors in stereotype formation.

Investigated the effect of group membership on the processes underlying the formation of group stereotypes. In two studies, Ss were randomly assigned to a majority group, a minority group, or neither group (control). Ss were then presented with 48 short statements in which other in-group and out-group members displayed disirable and undesirable behaviors, with either desirable or undesirable behaviors occurring more frequently. Across these items there was no correlation between group membership and desirability of behavior. In Study 1, measures of covariation perception showed that control Ss formed biased impressions of the group, consistent with a memory-based process of stereotype formation. Group members' perceptions showed little evidence of this bias. In Study 2, group members showed evidence of an in-group bias, with further evidence suggesting that these biased judgments were not dependent upon memory processes. Discussion focuses on the complexity of stereotyping processes introduced by social categorization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Gender Differences in Automatic In-Group Bias: Why Do Women Like Women More Than Men Like Men?

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias.

Three studies examined the impact of the need for cognitive closure on manifestations of in-group bias. All 3 studies found that high (vs. low) need for closure increased in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Specifically, Study 1 found a positive relation between need for cognitive closure and both participants' ethnic group identification and their collective self-esteem. Studies 2 and 3 found a positive relation between need for closure and participants' identification with an in-group member and their acceptance of an in-group member's beliefs and attitudes. Studies 2 and 3 also found a negative relation between need for closure and participants' identification with an out-group member and their acceptance of an out-group member's beliefs and attitudes. The implications of these findings for the epistemic function of in-groups are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Vicarious moral licensing: The influence of others' past moral actions on moral behavior.

This article investigates the effect of others' prior nonprejudiced behavior on an individual's subsequent behavior. Five studies supported the hypothesis that people are more willing to express prejudiced attitudes when their group members' past behavior has established nonprejudiced credentials. Study 1a showed that participants who were told that their group was more moral than similar other groups were more willing to describe a job as better suited for Whites than for African Americans. In Study 1b, when given information on group members' prior nondiscriminatory behavior (selecting a Hispanic applicant in a prior task), participants subsequently gave more discriminatory ratings to the Hispanic applicant for a position stereotypically suited for majority members (Whites). In Study 2, moral self-concept mediated the effect of others' prior nonprejudiced actions on a participant's subsequent prejudiced behavior such that others' past nonprejudiced actions enhanced the participant's moral self-concept, and this inflated moral self-concept subsequently drove the participant's prejudiced ratings of a Hispanic applicant. In Study 3, the moderating role of identification with the credentialing group was tested. Results showed that participants expressed more prejudiced attitudes toward a Hispanic applicant when they highly identified with the group members behaving in nonprejudiced manner. In Study 4, the credentialing task was dissociated from the participants' own judgmental task, and, in addition, identification with the credentialing group was manipulated rather than measured. Consistent with prior studies, the results showed that participants who first had the opportunity to view an in-group member's nonprejudiced hiring decision were more likely to reject an African American man for a job stereotypically suited for majority members. These studies suggest a vicarious moral licensing effect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility.

Two experiments investigated how in-group identification, manipulated with a bogus pipeline technique affects group members' desire for individual mobility to another group. In the first experiment (N?=?88), the in-group had low status, and group boundaries were either permeable or impermeable. Low identifiers perceived the group as less homogeneous, were less committed to their group, and more strongly desired individual mobility to a higher status group than did high identifiers. The structural possibility of mobility afforded by permeable group boundaries had no comparable effect. The second experiment (N?=?51) investigated whether in-group identification can produce similar effects when relative group status is unknown. Even in the absence of an identity threat, low identifiers were less likely to see the groups as homogeneous, felt less committed to their group, and more strongly desired individual mobility than did high identifiers. Results are discussed with reference to social identity and self-categorization theories. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)