W06 Alvaro&Crano1997 Indirect Minority Influence

8/8/2019 W06 Alvaro&Crano1997 Indirect Minority Influence

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/w06-alvarocrano1997-indirect-minority-influence 1/16

Indirect Minority Influence: Evidence for Leniency

in Source Evaluation and Counterargumentation

Eusebio M. Alvaro and William D. Crano

U n i v e r si t y o f A r i z o n a

In-group m inorities instigate indirect change because of their distinctiveness, the unexpectedness of

their position, and their comm on identity with their targets. Preliminary study (N = 40 8) unc overed

links among a set of attitudes and rev ealed participants were unaw are of the relationship between

some attitudes despite significant correla tion and proximity in multidimensional space. Study 1 (N

= 2 22) ad vocated a ban of homos exual soldiers attributed to majority, in-group, or out-grou p minority

sources. No direct influence was evident. When credited to an in-group minority, the message

influenced attitudes toward gun control, which were linked to the focal beliefs. Relative to other

sources, the in-group min ority was m ore positively evaluated, and its message less strongly counterar-

gued (bo th p < .05). Study 2 (N = 7 8) reversed direct and indirect attitude ob jects and replicatedthese results. Study 3 (N = 66) examined majority influence and revealed direct, but not indirect,

majority influence when participants' membership group was threatened.

C o m p a r a b i l i t y o f t h e p r o c e s s e s b y w h i c h m i n o r i t i e s a n d t h e

major i ty wie ld in f luence remains cont rovers ia l , bu t few today

voice doubt tha t minor i ty group s a re capable of exerc is ing per -

suas ion , a l though the i r in f luence of ten i s de layed and ind i rec t

(Brewer & Crano , 1994; Crano , 1994; Crano & Hannula-Bra l ,

1994; Kruglanski & Mackie , 1990; Levin e & Russo , 1987; Mos-

covic i , 1976 , 1980 , 1985; Mo scov ic i & Mugny, 1983; Mugny,

1982, 1985; Mugny & Perez , 1991; Perez & Mugny, 1990;

Wood, Lundgren , Ouel le t te , Busceme, & Blacks tone , 1994) .Indirect social influence, the focus of the present inves t iga t ion ,

re fe rs to the impact o f a source and i t s message on ta rge ts '

a t t i tudes toward i ssues re la ted , bu t no t ident ica l , to the cen t ra l

th rus t o f the persuas ive communica t ion . An example of ind i rec t

soc ia l in f luence in persuas ion i s a f forded by Perez and Mugny

( 1 9 8 7 ) , w h o e x p o s e d h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s t o a m e s s a g e t h a t

a rgued for lega l ized abor t ion . The message , cont ra ry to s tu-

dents ' a t t i tudes , was a t t r ibu ted to a speaker of e i ther in -group

minor i ty or major i ty s ta tus . Par t ic ipants then expressed the i r

Euseb io M. Alva ro and William D. Crano, Department o f Comm uni-

cation, University of Arizona.Preparation of this research was facilitated by National Scienc e Foun-

dation Grant SBR-9396057. We appreciate Lawrence A. Messr's con-

structive advice on various analytic features of this work.

Correspondence concerning th is article should be addressed to Wil-

liam D. Crano, who is at Department of Psychology, University of British

Colum bia, D. T. Kenny Building, 2136 West M all, Vancouver, British

Colum bia, Canada V6T 1Z4 through June 1, 1997, and at Depart-

ment of Communication, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizo na 85721

after June 1, 1997. Electro nic mail may be sent via the Internet to

crano @ccit.arizona.edu.

a t t i tudes toward abor t ion and b i r th cont ro l . The minor i ty source

had no e f fec t on abor t ion a t t i tudes . However , par t ic ipants had

changed the i r a t t i tudes toward cont racept ion in a d i rec t ion con-

s i st e n t w i t h t h e th r u st o f t h e p ro a b o r t i o n m e s s a g e - - b i r t h c o n t r o l

became more acceptab le , even though i t was never a par t o f the

persuas ive message . The major i ty source had no such e f fec t .

These resu l t s sugges t tha t minor i ty in f luence can spread beyond

the boundar ies of the ta rge ted top ic to assoc ia ted i s sues even in

the absence of d i rec t in f luence .The ex ten t to which inf luence spreads beyond the ta rge ted

issue and the mechanisms respons ib le for such inf luence remain

o p e n t o q u es t io n . I n P e r e z a nd M u g n y ' s ( 1 9 8 7 ) e x p e r i m e n t, t h e

indi rec t a t t i tude objec t (cont racept ion) was re la ted conceptua l ly

to the d i rec t (abor t ion) . Whether ind i rec t minor i ty in f luence

wi l l occur whe n log ica l ly d i s t inc t bu t empir ica l ly l inked top ics

are a t i s sue remains unreso lved , bu t research on s t ruc tura l con-

s i s tency among a t t i tudes sugges ts the ques t ion i s wor th ask ing .

For the sake of a rgument , suppose tha t p roecologica l a t t i tudes

are l inked to a t t i tudes toward abor t ion . Would a communica t ion

di rec ted a t abor t ion have an ind i rec t impact on ecologica l a t t i -

tudes? These be l ie fs a re no t log ica l ly re la ted , and , hence , change

pressure on one might no t be expec ted to a f fec t the o ther . How-

ever , the mechanisms of change respons ib le for Perez and Mug-

ny ' s resu l t s may func t ion as wel l in th i s ins tance . I f so , then

indi rec t in f luence might occur even in th i s seemingly unl ike ly

c i rcumstance , and i t i s to th i s i s sue tha t th i s research ser ies i s

devoted . This ex tens io n of the s tandard parad igm to a s i tua t ion

in which a be l ie f apparen t ly unre la ted to the cen t ra l focus of

persuas ion i s a f fec ted by change pressures sugges ts an exc i t ing ,

i f somewhat unnerv ing , poss ib i l i ty . I t impl ies tha t a change of

a t t i tude may be induced on i ssues tha t a re never even ment ioned

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1997, Vol. 72, No. 5. 94 9- 96 4Copyright 1997 by the American P sychological Association. Inc. 0022-3514/97/$3.00

949



950 ALVARO AND CRANO

in the direct persuasive assault and that are not obviously or

apparently related to the focus of persuasion. Moreover, such

change may occur without concomitant change on the direct

issue.

There is good reason to believe that indirect change may

occur even on issues that are apparently unrelated to the focal

issue. Research on attitude structure and the configurai relationsamong attitudes (Fink & Kaplowitz, 1993; Judd & Krosnick,

1988) has suggested that attitudes organized within the same

cognitive constellation might all be affected if one member of

the set is changed. We expanded on this insight by hypothesizing

that even in the absence of change, strong pressures on one

component ( a belief or attitude) of the constellation may induce

movement on related components. It is probable that the more

closely interconnected the component parts of the constellation

are, the more will change (or pressure) on one belief affect

others; the more central or vested the belie f, the more will its

change affect other attitudes, and the more likely will change

or pressure on one element affect cognitively proximal attitudes.

The structural orientation is common in social psychology (e.g.,

Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958) and forms the theoret ical under-pinning of much recent work on attitudes, social cognition, and

social attribution.

Context-Co mpar ison Model (CCM)

N o r m F o r m a t i o n o r W e a k , N o n v e s t e d A tt i tu d e s

The Context-Comparison model provides the general theo-

retical framework of the present research. The model was devel-

oped to delineate the circumstances that affect the likelihood

that influence sources will prevail (Alvaro & Crano, 1996;

Crano, 1994; Crano & Alvaro, in press; Crano & Hannula-

Bral, 1994). In this model, susceptibility to social influence is

predicated on the interplay of the min orit y-maj ority status of

influence source and target, the source's in -group -out- group

status relative to the target, and the subjective or objective nature

of the issue under consideration. On issues involv ing norm for-

mation, or weakly held attitudes, the CCM holds that in-group

minority sources enjoy a persuasive advantage owing to their

distinctiveness, their capacity to stimulate thought and message

elaboration, and the positive regard they evoke as a consequence

of their (in-group) identification with the target of persuasion

(cf. Alvaro & Crano, 1996; McGuire & McGuire, 1988; Turner,

Hogg, takes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). A source's distinc-

tiveness leads targets to focus on its message. In conjunction

with reduced counterargumentation, enhanced elaboration

heightens the minor ity 's persuasive impact vis h vis an influencesource of majority status, which is not distinctive and as such

does not stimulate elaboration (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

This main effect prediction is conditioned on the subjective

or objective nature of the judgment task. In general, sources

similar to targets on relevant attributes are preferrecl and are

more influential when judgments are perceived as being of a

subjective nature (i.e., as matters of opinion rather than of fac t).

When judgments are cast as objective, sources that are dissimila r

to the target appear to enjoy a persuasive advantage. This expec-

tation is consistent with considerable research on social compar-

ison and small group process (e.g., E llis, Olson, & Zanna, 1983;

Gorenflo & Crano, 1989; Kaplan, 1989; Laughlin & Ellis, 1986;

Olson, Ellis, & Zanna, 1983). Combined with considerations

of minority or majority status, this contextual factor suggests

that minority sources will be especially influent ial on subjective

judgments when they are in-group and on objective judgments

when they are out-group (cf. Crano & Hannula-Bral, 1994).

E s t a b l i s h e d A t t i tu d e s

CCM-based expectations are not too different when the staple

of social inf luence research, established beliefs, are at issue.

Past studies have suggested that the majority is most influent ial

in public, direct persuasion attempts, especially when the social

categoriza tion of source and target is identical, the issue is cast

as subjective, and measurement is immediate (vs. delayed). In

these circumstances, the initial positive evaluations of targets

for the (in-group) majority source may dampen the tendency

to counterargue, thus leading to direct, if not well-elaborated,

change. Or, as Moscovici (1985) suggested, change may result

from mere compliance to social pressure. In the case of true

change, some effect on linked beliefs is expected, because amodification in one component of the belief structure should

affect other, related attitudes, especially if the focal belief is

central. If Moscovici's supposition holds, little indirect change

would occur because mere compliance would not destabilize

the belief structure.

The CCM holds that the minorit y will exert little direct influ-

ence on strongly held attitudes; however, it may enjoy a persua-

sive advantage in indirect attitude change because of its distinc-

tiveness and consequent capacity to stimulate message elabora-

tion. As Perez and Mugny (1990) observed, people resist being

associated with minority positions when well-established beliefs

are at issue; however, the minor ity may foster indirect influence.

Let us consider possible mechanisms responsible for indirect

change.

Mechanisms of Indirect Change

C o u n t e r a r g u m e n t a t i o n

In theory, two factors, countera rgumentat ion and source eval-

uation, lie at the heart of indirect change. From Hovland's time

onwards, attitude change has been hypothesized as conditional

on a target's capacity or motivation to counterargue a message

(Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953 ). Th is view has been supported

consistently and plays a central role in today's treatments of

attitude change (cf. Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Owing to its

status, the message of the in-group minority is not strongly

counterargued (Turner et al., 1987). Rather, receivers resist so

as to avoid identif ication with the minor ity position (Perez &

Mugny, 1990). Despite such resistance, the message itself may

be processed, if only to maintain solidarity or harmony with

the in-group source. Such elaboration may prove problematic.

Ordinarily, a well-elaborated message from a valued source

causes attitude change when met with little counterargument.

Resistance to change under such circumstances introduces stress

or imbalance into the attitude structure. The CCM holds that

these change pressures will be diverted to attitudes linked to the

focal issue. Change in these linked attitudes (i.e., indirect



INDIRECT MINORITY INFLUENCE 951

change) that is consistent with the thrust of the communication

may thus defuse the pressure resulting from its undefended

elaboration.

Source Evaluation

Characteristics of the source of a persuasive message also areidentified as major determinants of persuasion. Sources who

possess socially valued traits or have little interest in the out-

come of a persuasive appeal are more influential than those

who do not share these attributes (Brewer & Crano, 1994).

Generalizing knowledge of source effects to minority influence

suggests that the in-group (vs. out-group) minority, which en-

joys the membership status of the target group, will have the

higher likelihood of persuading. This expectation is commonly

confirmed (Clark & Maass, 1988; Maass, Clark, & Haberkorn,

1982; Maass, West, & Cialdini, 1987; Mart in, 1988, 1992) and

is consistent with social identi fication theory (e.g., Hogg &

Abrams, 1988; Turner, 1991). This observation might appear

at odds with earlier arguments that assumed majority group

members' reluctance to align themselves with a min ority 's posi-tion, but there is a considerable gulf between source derogation

and unwill ingness to be identified with a position. An in-group

person who states a minority position may well stimulate a

receiver's reluctance to be affiliated with the position, but it is

unlikely such a source would be derogated given its in-group

status. Indeed, in some circumstances (in-group) minority mem-

bers who hold staunchly to an unpopular position might be

admired for their courage (Kruglanski & Mackie, 1990). Many

studies have investigated the effects of in-group-out-group

source status, but most have been concerned with direct influ-

ence (e.g., Gaffie, 1992; Martin, 1992; Volpato, Maass, Mucchi-

Faina, & Vitti, 1990). Results of the few studies on indirect

influence are consistent with the view that in-groups are more

likely than out-groups to foster indirect change (Aebischer, Hew-

stone, & Henderson, 1984; Clark & Maass, 1988; Martin, 1988;

Perez & Mugny, 1987), but even these studies have defined

indirect influence in terms of attitudes that are logically and

conceptually related to the targeted belief.

The CCM is compatible with the implications drawn from

these considerations of source evaluation and counterargumenta-

tion. It assumes that all lasting influence (conversion, in Mos-

covici' s terms) is a result of message elaboration. The majori ty's

message is not likely to be elaborated unless the issue is ex-

tremely self-relevant. Except in these cases, majority-induced

change is not the result of elaboration but the outcome of social

pressure (Moscovici, 1985) or the need to attain or maintain

group solidarity (Turner, 1991). Thus, in most cases, majorityinfluence, should it occur, wil l neither persist nor affect rela ted

beliefs. If majority membership is not salient or important to

the target, then even this limited form of influence will not

occur. The CCM thus explains both successful and unsuccessful

majority influence attempts and locates the source of success in

the target's regard (or lack of regard) for the majority group

(see Study 3).

Different considerations govern minority influence. By virtue

of distinctiveness, an in-group min ority 's message will be elabo-

rated. The message will not produce direct influence owing to

receivers' reluctance to be associated with the minority position,

but the elaboration of the message has implications for change

on linked attitudes, as discussed. Further, the modified indirect

attitude may, over time, cause the focal attitude to change,

thereby reestablishing structural consistency. That is, the focal

attitude may be modified so as to become consistent with the

(linked, indirect) attitude that had changed as a result of the

initial persuasion process. This delayed (focal) attitude changeis a familiar result in the literature on minority influence, and

the CCM provides a theoretical rationale for it. This latter pre-

diction of the model was not tested in this series, but is presented

to demonstrate the CCM's potential to integrate prior findings.

With respect to out -group minorities , the model holds that in

most circumstances, the positions of such groups will not be

elaborated. Coupled with source derogation, this lack of elabo-

ration renders the out-group ineffectual as a source of persua-

sion. All of these predictions assume that the source takes a

persuasive position at variance with the target's established be-

liefs. If the target agrees with the communication, then little

change pressure is generated, and modification of belief is

unlikely.

The studies that follow were designed to investigate the valid-ity of these propositions--to specify the circumstances under

which indi rect change occurs and to examine the social psycho-

logical bases of such change. Before begi nning he experimental

investigation of indirect change, it was necessary to isolate is-

sues that may be defined as being related indirectly. The issues

must satisfy three criteria: evaluations of the critical issues must

be significantly correlated; the relat ionship should not appear

necessary on any logical basis; and the relationship should not

be readily accessible--the critical attitudes should not be per-

ceived as connected or dependent. The goal of the first study

was to isolate issues that are conceptually distinct but related

empirically. In Preliminary Study 2, the multidi mensional rela-

tionships among these critical attitudes were examined along

with subjective perceptions of issue relatedness.

Preliminary Study 1

Method

In a mass testing session, 308 students of the Universityof Arizonacompleted a series of four 10-item Likert-type scales focused on theissues of gun control, homosexuals n the military,euthanasia, and tuitionincreases at their University. No other requirements were made ofparticipants.

Results

The internal consistencies of the 10-item scales and their

intercorre lations were determined. Results suggest that attitudes

were measured reliably (coefficient a ranged from .75 to .94).

The correlational analysis suggests the possible suitability of

two attitude objects for further study. These issues, gun control

and gay soldiers in the military, were correlated significantly,

r(3 80) = .42, p < .001, but they apparently were not connected

on any logical basis. Before committing to these issues, addi-

tional questions addressed in the second preliminary study must

be answered.



9 5 2 A LV AR O A N D C R A N O

P r e l i m i n a r y S t u d y 2

A t t i t u d e o b j e c t s t h a t a re s t r o n g l y c o r r e l a t e d m a y n o t b e c o g n i -

t i v e l y p r o x i m a l , a h y p o t h e t i c a l r e q u i s i t e f o r i n d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e .

P r e l i m i n a r y S t u d y 2 w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h e s t a b l i s h i n g th e c o g n i -

t i v e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e t w o a t t i t u d e o b j e c t s i d e n t i f i e d a s c a n d i d a t e s

f o r f u r t h e r s t u d y b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r s t r o n g c o r r e l a t i o n a n d w e a k

l o g i c al c o n n e c t i o n . M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a li n g ( M D S ) a n a l y s i s

w a s u s e d t o e s t a b l i s h p ro x i m i t y . T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n m a d e u s e o f

s i x a t t it u d e i s s u es , i n c l u d i n g t h e t w o i m p l i c a t e d i n P r e l i m i n a r y

S t u d y 1 . T h e i r i n t e r c o r r e la t i o n s w e r e e x a m i n e d , a s w a s t h e i r

l o c a t i o n i n m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e .

I n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d t o e v a l u a t e v a r i -

o u s a t t it u d e o b j e c t s a n d t h e n t o c o n s i d e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g

t h e m b y e v a l u a t i n g t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f t h e i r c h a n g i n g o n e a t t i t u d e

i n t h e e v e n t o f a n o t h e r ' s c h a n g e . L i k e l i h o o d o f c h a n g e e s t i m a t e s

w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e i n t e r p o i n t d i s t a n c e s b e t w e e n t h e a t t i tu d e

o b j e c t s d e t e r m i n e d b y m e a n s o f M D S a n a l y si s . T h i s a n a ly s i s

w a s u n d e r t a k e n t o a s s e s s p a r t i c ip a n t s ' l e v el o f a w a r e n e s s o f t h fi

r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g t h e i r b el i e fs .

M e t h o d

P a r t i c i p a n t s

A s a m p le o f 103 u nde rg ra dua te s tude n ts o f the Un ive r si ty o f Ar iz ona

pa r t i c ipa te d in th i s s tudy fo r c our s e c r e d i t . T he y we re s tud ie d in the i r

c la s s room s in g rou ps o f 10 to 20 . As in the f i r st p r e l im ina ry s tudy , a l l

m a te r ia l s we re a s s e m ble d in book le t s d i s t r ibu te d a t the be g inn ing o f the

sess ion.

R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

T he r e s e a rc h que s t ionna i r e wa s ide n t ic a l fo r a l l pa r t i c ipa n t s . S ix a t t i -

tude ob je c t s we re a s s e s s e d by us ing s e ve n 7 -po in t s e m a n t ic d i f f e r e n t ia l

s c a le s , the pos i t ive e ndpo in t s o f wh ic h we re good, kind, bea utiful, wise,

moral right, a nd positive. The a t t i tude ob je c t s w e re ga y s o ld ie r s in the

m i li ta ry , gun c on t ro l , a bor t ion , b i r th c on t ro l , e u tha na s ia , a nd a tu i t ion

increase a t the Univers i ty .

P a r t 2 o f the qu e s t ionna i r e r e qu i r e d pa r t i c ipa n t s to e s t im a te the p roba -

b i l i ty tha t a c ha nge in one o f the i r a t t i tude s wou ld p rom pt a c ha nge in

a nother . A l l pos s ib le pa i r s o f a t t i tude ob je c t s we re c o ns t ruc te d f rom the

s ix c r i ti c a l i t em s , r e s u l t ing in 15 (pa i r e d ) c om pa r i s ons . T he fo rm a t o f

a l l i t e m s wa s a s fo l lows (no te p roba b i l i t i e s c ou ld r a nge f rom 0% to

1 0 0 % ) :

If you chang ed yo ur min d rega rding you r pos it io n on HOMOSEXUALS

IN THE MILITARY, wha t is the prob abil i ty tha t you wou ld a lso c hang e

your position on ABORTION.9

P ROBABILITY =

R e s u l ~

I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g a l l a t t i t u d e o b j e c t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n

t h e l o w e r t r i a n g u l a r m a t r i x o f T a b l e 1 . T h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n

g a y s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y a n d g u n c o n t r o l , t h e a t t i t u d e o b j e c t s

i m p l i c a t e d a s d e s e r v i n g o f f u r t h e r s t u d y , i s s t r o n g a n d s t a t i s t i -

c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , r ( 9 9 ) = . 4 0 , p < . 0 0 1 .

J u d g m e n t s o f t h e i n t e r c o n n e c t e d n e s s o f b e l ie f s w e r e a v e r a g e d

o v e r a l l p a r t i c ip a n t s . T h e r e s u l t i n g m e a n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e

u p p e r t r i a n g u l a r m a t r i x o f T a b le 1 . T h e s e e n t r i e s r e p r es e n t m e a n

e s t i m a t e s a c r o s s p a r t i c i p a n t s o f t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f a c h a n g e i n

o n e b e l i e f g i v e n a c h a n g e i n a n o t h e r. A s s h o w n , p a r t i c i p a n t s d i d

n o t p e r c e i v e m u c h c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c r it i c a l at t i tu d e s ( M

= 1 0 . 8 % ) . T h e m a t r i x o f t h e s e s i m i l a r i ty c h o i c e s w a s a n a l y z e d

b y u s i n g M D S a n a l y s i s f o l l o w i n g K r u s k a l ' s m e t h o d ( 1 9 6 4 a ,

1 9 6 4 b ) o f a r r a n g i n g s t im u l i i n N - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e o n t h e b a si s

o f t h e i r s i m i l ar i t i es w h i l e m a x i m i z i n g t h e g o o d n e s s o f f it . A

t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n p r o d u c e d a n i n t e r p r e ta b l e s o l u-

t i o n w i t h s a t i s f a c t o r y g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( s t r e s s =

. 08 , R 2 = . 9 6 ) . T h e d i m e n s i o n a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e M D S s o l u t i o n

c o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s s u g g e s t in g t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s ' s i m i l a r it y

r a t i n g s w e r e b a s e d o n t h e p u b l i c - p r i v a t e n a t u r e o f t h e i s s u e a n d

i t s p e r s o n a l r e l ev a n c e . O n e d i m e n s i o n a r r a y e d i s s u e s f r o m t h e

m o r e p r i v a te o r i n t i m a t e c h o i c e s i n v o l v i n g b i r t h c o n t r o l a n d

a b o r t i o n t o t h e m o r e p u b l i c o n e s o f t u i t i o n i n cr e a s es , h o m o s e x -

u a l s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y , a n d e u t h a n a s i a . T h e o t h e r d i m e n s i o n

w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h e v a l u a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l r e l e v a n c e, w i t h a b o r -

t i o n , b i r t h c o n t r o l , o r t u i t i o n i n c r e a s e s a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y a p p e a r i n g

m o r e i n d i v i d u a l ly r e l e v a n t t h a n g u n c o n t r o l , h o m o s e x u a l s o l -

d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y , o r e u t h a n a s i a .

M o r e r e l e v a n t t o p r e s e n t c o n c e r n s i s t he m a t r i x o f i n t e r p o i n t

d i s t a n c e s b e t w e e n t h e a t t it u d e o b j e c t s. A s s h o w n i n T a b l e 2 ,

p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d g a y s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y a n d

g u n c o n t r o l w e r e p r o x i m a l i n t h e m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e t h a t

d e s c r i b e s t h e o v e r a l l c o n fi g u r a t io n . O n l y a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d b i r t h

c o n t r o l a n d a b o r t i o n w e r e l i n k e d m o r e c l o s e ly i n t h e s p a ce , a

T a b l e 1

Es t im a ted C hange Probab i l i t ie s and In t e rcor re la ti ons Be tw een

the Six Cri t ical At t i tude Objects: Prel imina ry Study 2

Att i tude ob je c t 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 . T u i t ion - - 6 .75 4 .02 7 .14 2 .07 5 .10

2. Gay soldie rs in mil i ta r y .15 - - 13.21 10.78 8.53 6.713 . Me rc y k i l l ing . 22 . 29 - - 15 .89 27 .17 12 .68

4 . Gun c on t ro l - . 0 7 . 40 . 12 - - 7 .41 7 .085 . A b o r t i o n . 21 . 3 0 . 3 7 . 17 - - 3 5 . 5 26 . B i r th c on t ro l - . 0 5 . 23 . 19 . 45 . 30 - -

Note . E s t im a te d c ha nge p roba b i l i t i e s a ppe a r in uppe r t r i a ng le , in te r c o r r e la t ions in lowe r . E n t r i e s in theuppe r t r i a ngu la r m a t r ix e xpre s s the m e a n pe rc e n ta ge e s t im a te ( a c ros s pa r t i c ipa n t s ) o f l ike l ihood o f c ha n gein one a t t i tude g ive n a c ha nge in the o ther . Be c a us e o f m is s ing da ta , e n t r i e s a r e ba s e d on ns r a ng ing f rom

92 to 100 .



I N D I R E C T M I N O R I T Y I N F L U E N C E 9 5 3

T a b l e 2

lnterpoint Distances Between the Six Critical Attitude Objects

Arrayed in Two-Dimensional Space

Att i tude ob je c t 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Tuit ion

2 . Ga y s o ld ie r s in m i l i t a ry 1 .46 - -3 . Me rc y k i l l ing 2 .08 0 .91 - -

4 . Gun c on t ro l 1 .98 0 .52 0 .85 - -5 . Abo r t ion 2 .50 1 .68 0 .84 1 .686. Bir th contro l 2 .21 1.58 0.88 1.70 0.37 - -

r e s u l t t h a t w a s a n t i c i p a t e d b y a n d t h a t b o l s t e rs t h e w o r k o f P e r e z

a n d M u g n y ( 1 9 8 7 , 1 9 9 0 ) . T h e c l o se p r o x i m i t y o f ab o r t i o n an d

b i r t h c o n t r o l i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y w a s p r o b a b l y a l s o o b t a i n e d i n

P e r e z a n d M u g n y ' s ( 1 9 8 7 ) e x p e r i m e n t a n d s u p p o r t s o u r e a r l ie r

s p e c u l a t io n s . N o t e t h a t c o r r e l a t i o n d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i ly i m p l y

m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l p r o x i m i ty . G u n c o n t r o l a n d b i r t h c o n t r o l w e r e

s t r o n g l y c o r r e l a t e d , r ( 9 9 ) = . 4 5 , p < . 0 0 1 , b u t n o t p r o x i m a l .

o f 10 to 20 a nd r e c e ive d c our s e c r e d i t fo r the i r work . A l l w e re r a ndom ly

a s s igne d to c ond i t ions .

Procedi~re

All the e xpe r im e n ta l m a te r ial s , inc lud ing t r e a tm e n t va r ia t ions , p re te s t ,

a nd pos t t e s t m e a s u re s we re c on ta ine d in book le t s p rov ide d to pa r t i c i -

pa n t s a t the be g inn ing o f the s e s s ion . Book le t s we re a r r a nge d r a ndom ly

a nd we re l a rge ly ind i s t ingu is ha b le . E xpe r im e n te r s we re una wa re o f

c ond i t ion .

T he p re te s t c ons i s te d o f 55 i t e m s p re s e n te d in a 7 -po in t L ike r t - type

s c a l ing fo rm a t . F our 10 - i t e m s c a le s t a ppe d a t t i tude s towa rd hom os e x ua l

s o ld ie r s in the m i l i t a ry , gun c on t ro l , e u tha na s ia , a nd a tu i t ion inc re a s e .

F i f t e e n a dd i t iona l i t e m s we re us e d a s f il le rs , a nd a l l i t e m s we re a r r a nge d

ha pha z a rd ly .

Af te r the p re te s t , pa r t i c ipa n t s r e a d a s t rong ly a rgue d pe r s ua s ive c om -

m unic a t ion e n t i t l e d " T he Ca s e Aga ins t Ga ys in the Mi l i t a ry . " A t the

t im e o f the s tudy , th i s top ic wa s o f c ons ide ra b le s a l i e nc e . T he U .S .

Congre s s wa s de ba t ing the i s s ue , i t wa s r e c e iv ing w ide s p re a d , da i ly ,

ne ws c ove ra ge , a nd i t w a s ge ne ra t ing c ons ide ra b le c on t rove r sy . P re fa c ing

the c om m unic a t ion wa s a b r ie f s t a te m e n t tha t in t roduc e d the two c r i t i c a l

t r e a tm e n t m a n ipu la t ions , s ou rc e a nd t a s k type .

Discussion

T h e M D S s o l u t i o n s u g g e s ts t h a t g u n c o n t r o l a n d g a y s o l d ie r s

i n t h e m i l i t a r y a r e u s e f u l o b j e c t s f o r t h e s t u d y o f i n d i r e c t i n f l u -

e n c e . T h e m a t r i x o f i n t e r p o i n t d i s t an c e s d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e c l o s e

p r o x i m i t y o f t h e s e a t t it u d e o b j e c t s f o r o u r p a r t i c i p a n ts d e s p i t e

t h e i r la c k o f a w a r e n e s s o f t h i s li n k a g e . I n c o m b i n a t i o n , t h e s e

r e s u l t s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o r c l o s e l i n k a g e o f p r o x -

i m a l a t t i t u d e o b j e c t s n e e d n o t b e h i g h l y a c c e s s i b l e . T h e a t t i t u d e

o b j e c t s i s o l a t e d i n t h e t w o p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d i e s s a t i sf i e d t h e t h r e e

c r i t e r i a p r e s e n t e d e a r l i e r : T h e y w e r e p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d , t h e y

w e r e p r o x i m a l i n m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e , a n d t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p

w a s n o t h i g h l y a c c e s s i b l e . G i v e n t h i s p a t t e r n , w e n o w t u r n t ot h e e x p e r i m e n t a l a n a l y s i s o f i n d i r e c t m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e .

S t u d y 1

I n t h i s st u d y , p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d a s t r o n g p e r s u a s i v e

m e s s a g e t h a t a r g u e d a g a i n s t a l l o w i n g h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s i n

t h e m i l it a ry . T h e m e s s a g e w a s a t t r i b u t e d t o s o u r c e s o f i n - g r o u p

m i n o r i t y , o u t - g r o u p m i n o r i t y , o r m a j o r i t y s t a t u s . L i t t l e , i f a n y ,

d i r e c t at t i tu d e m o v e m e n t w a s e x p e c t e d i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e m e s -

s a g e , b u t i f i t d i d o c c u r , i t w o u l d o c c u r i n t h e m a j o r i t y s o u r c e

c o n d i t i o n . H o w e v e r , i n d i re c t c h a n g e p r e s s u r e w a s e x p e c t e d t o

b e e v i d e n t i n t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e c o n d i t i o n . T h e C C M

h o l d s t h a t s u c h p r e s s u r e m a y l e a d t o c h a n g e i n t h e i n d i re c t

a t t it u d e , g u n c o n t r o l . P o s t t r e a t m e n t m e a s u r e s o f d i r e c t a n d i n d i -

r e c t a t ti t u d e w e r e t a k e n a l o n g w i t h c o g n i t i v e r e s p o n s e s a n d

s o u r c e e v a lu a t i o n s . C o m p l e m e n t a r y p a t t e r n s o f c o u n t e r a r g u m e n t

a n d s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n , o u t l i n e d e a r l i er , w e r e e x p e c t e d t o u n d e r l i e

i n d i r e c t a t t i t u d e c h a n g e .

Method

Source

T he m e s s a ge wa s a t t r ibu te d to one o f th re e s ourc e s . F o r thos e a s s igne d

to the in -g roup m inor i ty c ond i t ion , the m e s s a ge wa s a t t r ibu te d to the

Unive r s i ty o f Ar iz ona S tude n ts fo r S a n i ty in the Mi l i t a ry , wh ic h wa s

s a id to be " a s m a l l r a d ic a l o rga n iz a t ion o f 50 U n ive r s i ty o f Ar iz ona

s tude n ts who s t rong ly oppos e a ny l a w tha t wou ld a l low ga ys in the

m i l i t a ry . " T he ide n t ic a l m e s s a ge wa s us e d fo r the ou t -g roup m inor i ty

s ourc e c ond i t ion , wh ic h wa s a t t r ibu te d to s tude n ts f rom P im a Com m u-

n i ty Co l le ge , a c om m uni ty c o l l e ge in the v ic in i ty o f the pa r t i c ipa n t s '

un ive r s i ty . T o e m pha s iz e the m inor i ty s t a tus o f the m inor i ty s ou rc e s ,

pa r t i c ipa n t s r e a d , " A l though the [ s ourc e ' s ] pos i t ion i s c on t r a ry to the

be l ie f s o f a m a jo r i ty o f s tude n ts , we wou ld l ike you to r e a d a nd c ons ide r

the i r s t a te m e n t . "

In the m a jo r i ty s ou rc e c ond i t ion , the c om m un ic a t ion wa s a t t r ibu te d to

" re p re s e n ta t ive s o f the Un ive r s i ty o f Ar iz on a S tude n t Un io n As s oc ia t ion

(AS UA ) . O n the ba s i s o f a l a rge a nd c om pre he ns ive su rve y o f s tude n ts ,

the AS UA ha s de te rm ine d tha t the m a jo r i ty o f s tude n ts a t U o f A [ the

Unive r s i ty o f Ar iz o na ] s t rong ly oppos e a ny l a w tha t wou ld a l low ga ys

in the m i li ta ry. W e wo u ld l ike you to r e a d a nd c ons ide r the i r s t a te m e n t . "

T he s ourc e m a n ipu la t ion c re a te d a po te n t ia l c onfound ing be twe e n

pa r t i c ipa n t s ' in i t i a l a t t i tude a nd the i r s e l f -pe rc e p t ion a s be ing in the

m inor i ty o r m a jo r i ty on the c r i t i c a l i s s ue . T he c om m unic a t ion a lwa ys

a rgue d a ga ins t ga y s o ld ie r s in the m i l i t a ry . T hus , thos e w i th ne ga t ive

a t t i tude s towa rd ga y s o ld ie r s in the m i l i t a ry l e a rne d tha t the y we re in

the m a jo r i ty i f the m e s s a ge wa s a t t r ibu te d to the m a jo r i ty s ou rc e , whe re a s

thos e w i th pos i t ive e va lua t ions o f ga y s o ld ie r s in the m i l i t a ry found tha t

the i r s wa s a m inor i ty pos i t ion . T he oppos i t e he ld in the c a s e o f thos e

e xpos e d to a m inor i ty s ou rc e . T h is c onfoun d d id no t a f f e c t in te rp re ta tion

of the two m a n ipu la te d v a r ia b le s, howeve r, no r the i r r e le va nc e fo r a s -

s e s s ing the va l id i ty o f the m ode l . S ourc e s ta tus wa s no t a f f e c te d by

pa r t i c ipa n t s ' s t a tus , no r we re the s ourc e ' s in -g roup ide n t i ty o r the ob je c -

t ive - s ub je c t ive na tu re o f the t a s k . Any c onfound ing , s hou ld i t ha ve

oc c ur re d , wou ld ha ve a f f e c te d the foc a l i s s ue bu t wou ld ha ve ha d no

ne c e s s a ry be a r ing o n ind i r e c t a t t i tude s, the c e n t r a l foc us o f th i s inve s t i -

ga tive se r ies .

Participants

Unde rg ra dua te s tude n ts o f the Un ive r s i ty o f Ar iz ona (N = 222 ) we re

s u rve ye d in the p re te s t pha s e o f the s tudy . T he y we re t e s te d in g roups

Task

T he s ub je c t ive o r ob je c t ive na tu re o f the t a s k wa s m a n ipu la te d in the

la s t l ine s o f the m e s s a ge in t roduc t ion . F o r the ob je c t ive m a n ipu la t ion ,



9 5 4 A L VA R O A N D C R A N O

participants read, "O bvious ly , the issue of homosexuals in the mil i tary

involves cons iderable controversy, b ut we wou ld l ike you to respond to

this issue in l ight of the object ive eviden ce." Those receiving the subjec-

tive manipulation read, "Ob vio usly , the issue of homosexuals in the

mil i tary involv es considerable controversy, with em otional arguments

on both s ides . Ul t imately, peo ple 's judgme nts on this issue are probably

subject ive. W e would l ike you to share yo ur feel ings on this issue " (cf .

Crano & Hannula-Bral , 1994, for ear l ier use of this form o f t reatment) .

P o s t t e s t

Participants evaluated ea ch of the fou r critical attitude to pics through

the use of seven 7-point semantic differential scales, the positiv e pole s

of which were anchored by the adject ives good, kind, w ise, beautifulmoral right, an d positive. Following these measures, all participants

were asked to l is t the thoughts they had while reading the essay on the

case against hom osexual soldiers in the military. They we re instructed

to wri te one thought per l ine on the page provided and were al lowed 3

min for this task. Then, participants evaluated the message so urce

through the use of the seven semantic-differential item s used earlier.

Finally, after 15 filler items, participan ts returned to their though t listings

and scored each as being in agreement with, in disagreement with, or

i r relevant to the message they ha d read. Th ey then w ere debr iefed.

t h a n a n y o t h e r d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n r e m a i n i n g p a i r s . T h e s e r e s u l t s

s u p p o r t t h e u s e o f g u n c o n t r o l a s a n i n d i r e c t a t t it u d e o b j e c t .

Tr ea tmen t E f f ec t s on A t t i tude

A s e r i e s o f 3 ( s o u r c e : m a j o r i t y , i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y , o u t - g r o u p

m i n o r i t y ) x 2 ( t a s k : s u b j e c t i v e v s . o b j e c t i v e ) x 2 ( in i t i a l a tt i -

t u d e : m e d i a n s p l it o n t h e p r e t e s t d e f i n e d r e sp o n d e n t s a s f a v o r -

a b l e o r o p p o s e d t o h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s i n th e m i l i t a r y ) x 2

( M e a s u r e s : p r e t e s t - p o s t t e s t , a r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e ) a n a l y s e s o f

v a r i a n c e ( A N O V A s ) w e r e c o m p u t e d o n t he s ta n d a r d i z e d a t t it u d e

s c o r e s o f t h e f o u r i s s u e s a s s e s s e d i n t h i s s t u dy . A t t i t u d e s c o r e s

w e r e s t a n d a r d i z e d b e c a u s e t w o d i f f e r e n t s c a l i n g f o r m a t s w e r e

u s e d .

E u t h a n a s i a a n d T u i t i o n I n c r e a s e

N o s i g n i f i c a n t p r e - t o p o s t t e s t c h a n g e s w e r e f o u n d i n t h e

A N O V A s o n e i t h e r e u t h a n a s i a o r t u i t i o n . T h e s e a t t i t u d e s w e r e

n o t c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e t o p i c o f d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e , n o r w e r e t h e y

f o u n d t o b e p r o x i m a l i n t h e M D S a n a l y s i s ( T a b l e 2 ) ; h e n c e ,

i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s w e r e n o t e x p e c t e d o n t h e s e i s s u e s .

O f f s e t C o n t r o l G r o u p

Data f rom 50 addi t ional par ticipants were col lected for compar ison

purposes. U sing the same seven semantic differential scales as the experi-

mental group, offse t con trol participants evaluated students from the

Universi ty of Arizon a ( the in-group source ) and s tudents f rom Pim a

Com mun ity Col lege ( the out-grou p) . These par ticipants were not ex-

posed to any persuas ive communicat ion. Their purpose was to supply

an evaluat ion of the sources used in the main s tudy f ree f rom any

contaminat ion that might have occu rred as a consequence of their associ-

at ion w ith message o r t reatments.

R es u l t s

R e l iab i l i t y

T h e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s ( c o e f f i c i e n t a l p h a s ) o f a t t i t u d e

m e a s u r e s w e r e o f a c c e p t a b l e m a g n i t u d e ( C r a n o & B r e w e r,

1 9 8 6 ) . A l p h a s r a n g e d f r o m . 7 8 t o . 9 2 f o r t h e p r e t e s t a t t i t u d e

s c a l e s a n d f r o m . 9 4 t o . 9 6 f o r t h e p o s t t e s t a t t i t u d e m e a s u r e s .

R e l a t i o n s B e t w e e n B e l i e f s

S c o r e s f o r e a c h t o p i c w e r e s u m m e d t o f o r m i n d e x e s t h a t

r e p r e s e n t e d p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a t t it u d e s t o w a r d g a y s o l d i e r s i n th e

m i l i t a r y , g u n c o n t r o l , e u t h a n a s i a , a n d a t u i t i o n i n c r e a s e . P e a r s o n

p r o d u c t - m o m e n t c o r r el a t io n s w e r e c a l c u la t e d o n t h e s e p r et e sta t t it u d e s c a l e s a n d d i s c l o s e d r e s u l ts t h a t m i r r o r e d t h o s e o f t h e

p r e l i m i n a r y s t u d ie s . F a c t o r a n a l y s is ( p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s w i t h

e i g e n v a l u e t h r e s h o l d o f 1 . 0 ) o f t h e m a t r i x o f p r e t e s t a t t i tu d e

s c o r e s r e v e a l e d a t w o - f a c t o r s o l u t io n , w i t h g a y s o l d ie r s i n t h e

m i l i t a r y a n d g u n c o n t r o l l o a d i n g o n t h e f ir s t f a c t o r ( a c c o u n t i n g

f o r 3 2 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e ) a n d t h e t w o r e m a i n i n g s c a l e s d e f i n i n g

a s e c o n d f a c t o r ( 2 9 % o f v a r i a n c e ) . M D S a n a l y s is o f t h e c o r r e l a -

t i o n m a t r i x ( w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n s a s i n d e x e s o f s i m i l a r i t y ) r e v e a l e d

a t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l s o l u t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h at o f P r e l i m i n a r y S t u d y

2 . O f g r e a t r e l e v a n c e w a s t h e f i n d in g t h a t t h e i n t e r p o i n t d i st a n c e

b e t w e e n g u n c o n t r o l a n d g a y s o l d ie r s i n t h e m i l i ta r y w a s s m a l l e r

H o m o s e x u a l S o l d i e r s i n t h e M i l i t a r y

T h e A N O V A o n s t a n d a r d i z e d f o c a l a t t i tu d e s c o r e s r e s u l t e d i n

a s ig n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t o f in i t ia l a t t it u d e , F ( 1 , 2 1 0 ) = 3 8 5 . 1 4 ,

p < . 0 0 1, w h i c h s i m p l y r e f l e c ts th e o u t c o m e o f t h e m e d i a n -

s p l i t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e . I n a d d i t i o n , a s i g n i f i c a n t I n i t i a l

A t t i t u d e × M e a s u r e in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t w a s fo u n d , F ( 1 , 2 1 0 ) =

7 . 5 8 , p < . 0 1 , s u g g e s t i n g a s l i g h t r e g r e s s i o n e f f e c t o n a t t i t u d e

s c o r e s f r o m p r e t e s t t o p o s t t e s t . T h o s e c a t e g o r i z e d a s f a v o r a b l e

t o w a r d h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y b e c a m e s l i g h t l y le s s

s o o n t h e p o s t te s t , w h e r e a s t h o s e i n t h e n e g a t i v e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n

b e c a m e s l i g h t l y m o r e f a v o r a b l e o n t h e p o s t t e s t .

T h e o n l y o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t e f fe c t o f t h i s a n a l y s i s o f f o c a l i s s u e

a t t i t u d e s w a s a s i g n i f i c a n t S o u r c e x T a s k × I n i t i a l A t t i t u d e

i n t e r a c t i o n , F ( 2 , 2 1 0 ) = 4 . 5 7 , p < . 0 5 . S i m p l e e f f e c t s a n a l y s e s

r e v e a l e d n o s i g n i f i c a n t s im p l e S o u r c e × T a s k T y p e i n te r a c t i o n

a m o n g t h o s e c a t e g o r i z e d a s b e i n g i n f a v o r o f h o m o s e x u a l s o l -

d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y ( a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y , w h o w o u l d h a v e f o u n d

t h e a n t i g a y m e s s a g e c o n t r a r y t o t h e i r in i t ia l b e l i e f s ) . T h e s i m p l e

S o u r c e x T a s k T y p e i n te r a c t i o n w a s s i g n i f ic a n t a m o n g t h o s e

i n t h e a n t i g a y g r o u p , f o r w h o m t h e p e r s u a s i v e m e s s a g e w a s

a t t i t u d i n a l l y c o n g r u e n t , F ( 2 , 2 1 0 ) = 6 . 5 3 , p < . 0 1. T h e i n t e r a c -

t i o n d i s c l o s e d t h a t w h e n t h e ju d g m e n t t a s k w a s c a s t a s o b j e c t iv e ,

p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e c o n d i t i o n w e r e

m o r e a n t a g o n i s t i c t o w a r d h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y

t h a n w e r e t h o s e w h o s e s o u r c e w a s o f o u t - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s t a tu s .N o o t h e r m e a n c o n t r a s t s w e r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . T h i s i n t e r -

a c t i o n d i d n o t i n v o l v e t h e r e p e a t e d ( p r e t e s t - p o s t t e s t ) m e a s u r e

a n d h e n c e c a n n o t b e a t t ri b u t e d t o a d i f f e r e n t ia l r e s p o n s e t o

t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n . R a t h er , t h e re s u l t m i g h t r e f l e c t w i t h i n - c e l l

d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e s , w h i c h w e r e r e p l i c a t e d i n t h e p o s t -

t e s t , t h e r e b y c r e a t i n g t h e i n t e r a c t i o n .

G u n C o n t r o l

T h e A N O V A o n p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a t t i tu d e s t o w a r d g u n c o n t r o l ,

t h e i n d i r e c t i s s u e o f w h i c h t h e e v a l u a t i o n w a s i m p l i c a t e d ( b y



I N D I R E C T M I N O R I T Y I N F L U E N C E 955

f a c t o r a n a l y s i s a n d M D S ) a s b e i n g l i n k e d t o a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d

h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i ta r y d i s c l o s e d a s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n

e f f e c t o f i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e , F ( 1 , 2 1 0 ) = 5 . 1 2 , p < . 0 5 . P a r t i c i p a n t s

a n t a g o n i s t i c t o w a r d h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y w e r e

l e s s f a v o r a b l y d i s p o s e d t o w a r d g u n c o n t r o l th a n w e r e t h o s e w h o

f a v o r e d t h e a d m i s s i o n o f g a y m e n a n d l e s b i a n s . T h i s in i t i a l

a t t it u d e c l a s s i f i c a ti o n d i d n o t i n t e r a c t w i t h a n y o t h e r v a r i a b l e .T h r e e t h e o r e t i c a l l y r e l e v a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s a l s o w e r e

f o u n d i n th e A N O V A : a S o u r c e x M e a s u r e i n t e r a c ti o n , F ( 2 ,

2 1 0 ) = 9 . 1 0 , p < . 0 0 1 , a T a s k T y p e × M e a s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n ,

F ( 1 , 2 1 0 ) = 3 . 1 0 , p < . 0 8, a n d a si g n i f ic a n t s e c o n d - o r d e r

i n t e r a c t i o n o f S o u r c e × T a s k T y p e × M e a s u r e , F ( 2 , 2 1 0 ) =

9 . 5 2 , p < . 0 0 1 . G i v e n t h i s p a t t e r n , i t i s m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e t o

f o c u s o n t h e s i g n i f i c a n t s e c o n d - o r d e r i n t e r a c t i o n , i l l u s t r a t e d i n

F i g u r e 1 .

A s s h o w n , i n d i r e c t a tt i tu d e c h a n g e e f f e c t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e

p o s i t i o n a d v o c a t e d b y t h e s o u r c e w e r e s t r o n g ly e v i d e n t , b u t o n l y

w h e n t h e i s s u e w a s p r e s e n t e d a s s u b j e c t i v e a n d t h e s o u r c e w a s

o f i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s t a t us . T h i s r e s u l t w a s p r e d i c t e d o n t h e

b a s i s o f t h e C C M a n d s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t s t h e t h e o ry . I n d i r e c t

a t t it u d e c h a n g e w a s n o t o b s e r v e d i n a n y o t h e r c o n d i t i o n o f th es tudy .

S t a t i s t i c a l c o n t r a s t s s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e p r e d i c t i v e v a l i d i t y o f t h e

C C M . A s e x p e c t e d , n o p r e t e s t a t t i t u d e d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e e v i d e n t

b e t w e e n t h e s i x t r e a t m e n t g r o u p s f o r m e d b y t h e f a c t o r i a l c o m b i -

n a t i o n o f so u r c e a n d t a s k ty p e , F ( 5 , 2 1 6 ) = 0 . 2 0 . H o w e v e r , a

s i g n i f ic a n t d i f f e r e n c e w a s f o u n d b e t w e e n t r e a t m e n t g r o u p s o n

t h e p o s t t e s t , F ( 5 , 2 1 6 ) = 6 . 0 5 , p < . 0 0 1 , r e v e a l i n g t w o n o t e -

w o r t h y f e a t u r e s . F i r s t , t h e m e a n p o s t t e s t a t t i t u d e s c o r e o f t h e i n -

g r o u p m i n o r i t y , s u b j e c t iv e t a s k g r o u p w a s s i g n i f ic a n t l y d i f f e re n t

f r o m t h o s e o f t h e f iv e o t h e r t r e a t m e n t g r o u p s ( a l l p s < . 0 0 5,

c o r r e c t e d f o r m u l t ip l e c o m p a r i s o n s ) . N o o t h e r m e a n c o m p a r i -

s o n r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t . T h i s r e s u l t r e v e a l s t h a t t h o s e

w h o t h o u g h t t h e i r j u d g m e n t s w e r e s u b j e c t i v e an d w h o p r o c e s s e d

a c o u n t e r a t t i t u d i n a l m e s s a g e a t t r i b u t e d t o a n i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y

c h a n g e d t h e i r a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d g u n c o n t r o l c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e

t h r u s t o f t h e a n t i g a y m e s s a g e t h e y h a d r e c e i v e d ; t h e i r a tt i tu d e s

t o w a r d g u n c o n t r o l m o v e d i n a p o l i ti c a l l y c o n s e r v a t i v e d i r e c t i o n ,

c o n s o n a n t w i t h t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e s t a n c e o f t h e a n t i g a y m e s s a g e .

A s e c o n d s e r i e s o f c o m p a r i s o n s r e v e a l e d t h a t o n l y p a rt i c i p a n t s

0 .8

~ , 0 . 7

N 0 . 6

0 .5

7 0.4

~ 11.3

• 0.2o

~ 0. 1

0

~ .~.1

~ -0.2

P r e t e s t P o s t t e s t

I n l O b J

- ~ - I n / S u b

- - - O u t / O b J

- - - O u t / S u b

- - - M a J / O b J

- . - M a J / S u bi

Figure 1. Pretest to posttest attitude change on the indirect attitude

(gun control) as a funct ion of source and task type. Maj = major i ty

source; In = in-group/m inor i ty; Out = ou t-group/m inor i ty; Obj = O b-

ject ive; Sub = Subject ive.

4. 9

4. 7

4 .5

4 3

--~ 4. 1, , , - ,

3.9

3.7

3.5

Maj Mln ln I n M lnOut Ou t

Figure 2. Source evaluat ion by exper imental (majori ty, m inor i ty / in-

group, minor i ty/out-group sources) and offset control group ( in-group

and out-group sources) par ticipants. M AJ = major i ty; Minln = minor i ty

in-group; In = in-group; MinO ut = minor i ty out-group; Out = out-

group.

i n th e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e , s u b j e c t i v e t a s k g r o u p d e m o n -

s t r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t a t t i t u d e c h a n g e f r o m p r e t e s t t o p o s t t e s t , F ( 1 ,

3 6 ) = 5 1 . 3 6 , p < . 0 0 1 . N o o t h e r tr e a t m e n t g r o u p e x h i b i t e d

s i g n i f i c a n t p r e t e s t t o p o s t t e s t c h a n g e o n t h e i n d i r e c t i s s u e .

C o g n i t i v e R e s p o n s e s

A N O V A s o n t h e n u m b e r s o f p o s i ti v e a n d n e g a t i v e t h o u g h ts

p a r t i c i p a n t s g e n e r a t e d w h e n r e a d i n g t h e p e r s u a s i v e m e s s a g e r e -

v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e e f f e c t o n n e g a t i v e t h o u g h t p r o d u c -

t i o n , F ( 2 , 1 6 7 ) = 4 . 8 1 , p < . 0 1 . S t a t i s t i c a l c o n t r a s t s r e v e a l e d

t h a t p a r ti c i p a n t s i n t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e c o n d i t i o n g e n -

e r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n tl y f e w e r n e g a t i v e th o u g h t s ( M = 0 . 9 ) t h a n

d i d p a r t i c ip a n t s i n e i t h e r t h e m a j o r i t y ( M = 1 . 6 ) o r o u t - g r o u p

m i n o r i t y s o u r c e ( M = 1 . 9 ) c o n d i t i o n s , F ( 1, 1 6 7 ) = 4 . 0 6 a n d

9 . 3 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ( p < . 05 i n b o t h i n s t a n c e s ) . N o d i f f e r e n c e sw e r e f o u n d a m o n g g r o u p s i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f p o s i ti v e th o u g h t s .

S o u r c e E v a l u a t io n

E v a l u a t i o n s o f th e s o u r c e o f t h e p e r s u a si v e m e s s a g e w e r e

a n a l y z e d b y m e a n s o f a S o u r c e x T a s k T y p e A N O V A , w h i c h

r e v e a l e d a s ig n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t fo r s o u rc e , F ( 2 , 1 8 9 ) = 3 . 2 4 ,

p < . 05 . T h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e w a s e v a l u a te d m o r e

f a v o r a b l y ( M = 4 . 5 ) t h a n e i th e r t h e m a j o r i t y s o u r c e ( M = 3 . 9 )

o r th e o u t - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e ( M = 4 . 0 ) , F ( 1 , 1 8 9 ) = 5 . 6 6

a n d 3 . 9 6 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ( p < . 0 5 i n b o t h i n s t a n c e s ) .

T h e s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n a n a l y s i s i s n o t c o m p l e t e l y i n f o r m a t i v e

w i t h r e s p e c t t o c h a n g e o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a t t it u d e s t o w a r d t h es o u r c e a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f i t s a n t i g a y m e s s a g e . T h e o f f s e t

( s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n ) c o n t r o l g r o u p w a s u s e d t o g a i n f u r t h e r i n -

s i g h t i n t o t h i s i s s u e . I n t h i s g r o u p , p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d s t u d e n t s

f r o m t h e t w o r e l e v a n t i n s ti t u ti o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n in g . R e s u l t s

i l lu s t r a te d i n F i g u r e 2 s u g g e s t t h a t th e m a j o r i t y s o u r c e m a y h a v e

b e e n d e r o g a t e d a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f it s m e s s a g e . E x p e r i m e n t a l

p a r t i c ip a n t s w h o r e c e i v e d t h e c o u n t e r a t t it u d i n a l m e s s a g e f r o m

t h e m a j o r i t y e v a l u a t e d t h i s s o u r c e s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s p o s i t i v e l y

t h a n t h e o f f s e t c o n t r o l p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d s t u d e n t s f r o m t h e U n i -

v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a , F ( 1 , 1 6 2 ) = 1 1 . 6 6 , p < . 0 0 1 . T h e r e w a s

n o d i f f e r e n c e i n s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n s o f e x p e r i m e n t a l p a r t i c i p a n t s '



95 6 ALVARO AND CRANO

exposed to the in-group minority and the offset control group's

rating of this in-group, F( 1, 162) = 0.70, ns.

A compari son of the evaluations of participants who received

a counteratti tudinal message attributed to the out-group minority

with the offset control group 's evaluation of the out-group (stu-

dents from Pima Community College) revealed no significant

difference, F( 1, 122) = 1.52. Receivers' attitudes toward theout-group minority were apparently not affected by its associa-

tion with the antigay message.

Discu ss ion

The results of Study 1 are consistent with expectations and

provide useful insights into the mechanisms that underlie indi-

rect minority influence. As expected, no direct attitude change

was observed for any of the sources. However, a clear and

predicted change pattern was discovered on the linked, indirect

issue, gun control. Consistent with the hypotheses, participants

exposed to an in-group minori ty's conservative-leaningmessage

on gay soldiers in the military changed their attitudes toward

gun control, in a conservative direction, when the issue was castas involving subjective belief (vs. verifiable fact).

The analysis suggests an interesting source-evaluation dy-

namic. The majority source, which had no apparent direct or

indirect influence appeared to be derogated relative to the ratings

accorded the in-group by offset control participants. Apparently,

the majority's association with the antigay position resulted in

its derogation. Such derogation was not evident among partici-

pants whose persuasive message was attributed to the in-group

minority. In this condition, participants rated the source as posi-

tively as the offset control group had rated students of the Uni-

versity of Arizona. Further, the ratings they received were sig-

nificantly more positive than were those afforded the majority

source. This result may have occurred because the majority

source, although in-group, was considered by the participants

to be a membership rather than reference group (cf. Kelley,

1952). If this was the case, then rather little privilege would

be accorded the group when it presented a counterattitudinal

position. In the case of an in-group minority, a negative reaction

might not have occurred because of the relative impotence of

the group as a source of threat or pressure. Consistent with

Moscovici's (1985) arguments, the minority could not force

adherence to its position. As such, it would not stimulate re-

actance or ill will, and, consistent with findings, its evaluation

would not be affected negatively. A more detailed investigation

of these possibilities is presented in Study 3.

Variations in cognitive responses evident in this study provide

important information regarding the basis of indirect minorityinfluence. The in-g roup minority source stimulated significantly

fewer counterarguments than did either the majority or the out-

group minority. Evidently, those who received the communica-

tion attributed to the in-group minority responded to it with

little internal debate. In combination with source evaluation

variations, the cognitive response data suggest a certain leniency

on the part of participants exposed to the in-group minority.

Receivers processed the source 's information but did not count -

erargue strongly. Further, they did not derogate the source. How-

ever, as predicted, and consistent with considerable prior re-

search, they also did not succumb to the minority source' s mes-

sage. It is as if they permitted the minority source (by virtue of

its in-group status) the luxury of presenting its position without

contradiction or derogation. This apparently receptive reaction

could be made freely in the face of a persuasive communication

if it had been resolved that nothing said would impinge upon

established beliefs, given the target's reluctance to be linked to

the minority position. The danger of this Faustian bargain isseen in the impact of the in-group minority on allied beliefs.

Processing a message without counterargument, source deroga-

tion, or direct change introduces stress or imbalance into the

belief system. This imbalance can be relieved by altering allied

beliefs, and such an alteration is expressed as indirect attitude

change. Preliminary Studies 1 and 2 and the MDS analysis of

Study 1 all suggest that the allied belief in this case was gun

control, and it was precisely this attitude, and no other, that

was altered so as to enhance consistency with the persuasive

communication.

The mechan isms of counterargumentation and source appro-

bation-derogation appeared to operate as hypothesized, and the

analyses of the cognitive response and source evaluation data

shed light on the utility of the CCM in predicting indirectchange. Analysis revealed that although the in-group minority

stimulated significantly less counterargumentation and source

derogation, only those in the in-group minority source, subjec-

tive task condition manifested indirect change. These results are

compatible with the CCM, which holds that those in the subjec-

tive task condition would be most vulnerable to the message

of the in-group minority. Although the in-group minority may

stimulate tess counterargumentation overall (i.e., within both

subjective and objective judgment contexts), only those for

whom the task is subjective would be susceptible to change.

Attenuation of counterargument produced change only among

those for whom a readiness to change had been induc ed-- thos e

in the subjective task treatment. Those exposed to the in-group

minori ty in the objective task group were not expected to count-

erargue strongly, but neither were they susceptible to change.

Thus, their lack of movement on the indirect issue is consistent

with expectations (cf. Crano, Gorenflo, & Shackelford, 1988,

for discussion of this readiness to change position).

A simila r argument holds in considering the effects of source

evaluation. Although the in-group minority was rated more fa-

vorably than the others, the CCM holds that source evaluation

is relevant to message acceptance only for those susceptible to

in-group minority-induced change in the first pl ace --t hose for

whom the task was characterized as subjective (and for whom

the message was counteratt itudinal). In this case, source appro-

bation facilitated change. In the objective task treatment condi-

tion, a general lack of susceptibility rendered source evaluationimpotent as a mechanism of indirect attitude change.

Study 2

The C CM's explication of indirect minority influence is based

on the proposition that the cognitive proximity of attitude ob-

jects fosters the diffusion of change pressure from one attitude

to another. The model does not, however, specify which object

should be the target of influence and which, the indirect. As

such, the CCM holds that if the direct and indirect attitude

objects of Study 1 were reversed, a pattern of findings similar



I N D I R E C T M I N O R I T Y I N F L U E N C E 9 5 7

t o t h o s e o f th e f i rs t e x p e r i m e n t w o u l d o b t a i n : C h a n g e p r e s s u r e

a p p l i e d t o a t t i tu d e s t o w a r d g u n c o n t r o l s h o u l d r e s u l t i n i n d i r e ct

c h a n g e i n b e l i e f s r e g a rd i n g t h e a d v i s a b i l i t y o f g a y m e n a n d

l e s b i a n s i n t h e m i l i t a ry . S t u d y 2 w a s d e v e l o p e d t o t e s t t h e v i e w

t h a t t h e i n v e r s i o n o f p r o x i m a l a t t i t u d e o b j e c t s d o e s n o t a f f e ct

t h e o r e t ic a l e x p e c t a t io n s . T h e s t u d y f o l l o w e d t h e g e n e r a l f o r m a t

o f S t u d y 1 , b u t t h e f o c a l a n d i n d i r e c t i s s u e s w e r e r e v e r se d : G u nc o n t r o l w a s t h e f o c a l a t t i t u d e t o w h i c h t h e p e r s u a s i v e m e s s a g e

w a s a d d r e s s e d , a n d t h e i n d i r e c t a t t it u d e w a s h o m o s e x u a l s o l d i e rs

i n t h e m i l it a r y. O u t c o m e s s i m i l a r to t h o s e o f S t u d y 1 w e r e

e x p e c t e d , a n d , i f o b t a i n e d , t h e y w o u l d b o l s t e r t h e p l a u s ib i l i t y

o f t h e t h e o r e t ic a l p r o p o s i t i o n s t h a t h a v e b e e n p u t f o r w a r d .

M e t h o d


Unde rg ra dua te s tude n ts (N = 78) o f the Un ive r s ity o f Ar iz ona pa r t i c i -

pa te d in the s tudy fo r c our s e c r e d i t . T he y we re s tud ie d in s m a l l g roups

of 7 to 10 pa r t i c ipa n t s .

P r o c e d u r e

All m a te r ia l s we re a s s e m ble d in boo k le t s d i s t r ibu te d a t the be g inn ing

of the e xpe r im e n ta l s e ss ion . Book le t s we re a r r a nge d r a ndom ly a nd we re

c ons t ruc te d in s uc h a w a y tha t the f i r s t pa ge wa s ide n t ic a l fo r a l l pa r t i c i -

pa n t s . T hus , e xpe r im e n te r s we re una wa re o f t r e a tm e n t c ond i t ion .

T he p re te s t t a ppe d a t t i tude s towa rd s ix i s s ues : a bor t ion , b i r th c on t ro l ,

euthanas ia , a tui t ion increase a t the Univers i ty , and the c r i t ica l issues of

gun c o n t ro l a nd h om os e x ua l s o ld ie r s in the m i l i t ary . T en 7 -po in t L ike r t -

type s c a le s we re us e d to a s s e s s a t t i tude s on e a c h i s s ue .

Af te r the p re te s t , pa r t ic ipa n t s r e a d a m e s s a ge t i tl e d " T he C a s e Aga ins t

Gun C on t ro l , " a s t rong ly wr i t t e n c om m unic a t ion tha t a rgue d the fu t i l i ty

a nd ina dv is a b i l i ty o f gun c on t ro l l a ws . As in S tudy 1 , a b r ie f in t roduc t ion

s e rve d a s the m e c ha n is m fo r a t t a c h ing a s ou rc e to the c om m unic a t ion .

T a s k type wa s no t m a n ipu la te d in th i s s tudy . A l l pa r t i c ipa n t s we re to ld

tha t the i s s ue w a s one o f s ub je c t ive p re fe re nc e . In s t ruc t ions ide n t ic a l to

the s ub je c t ive t a s k m a n ipu la t ion o f S tudy 1 we re us e d fo r th i s pu rpos e .

S o u r c e

T he m e s s a ge wa s a t t r ibu te d to a s ou rc e o f m a jo r i ty o r in -g roup m inor -

i ty s t atus. In s t ruc t iona l m a n ipu la t ions ide n t ic a l to thos e o f S tudy 1 we re

us e d to c r e a te the s e two g roups . An ou t -g roup m inor i ty s ou rc e wa s no t

us e d .

P o s t t e s t s

Attitudes and thought listing. Af te r pa r t i c ipa n t s r e a d the m e s s a ge ,

the p re te s t s a nd the c om m unic a t ions we re c o l l e c te d , a nd the pos t t e s t

wa s d i s t r ibu te d . T he f i r s t pos tm a n ipu la t ion t a s k a s s e s s e d pa r t i c ipa n t s 'a t t i tude s th rough the us e o f s e ve n 7 -po in t s e m a n t ic d i f f e r e n t ia l s c a le s

fo r e a c h o f the s ix a t t i tude ob je c t s . T he pos i t ive e ndpo in t s o f the e va lua -

t ive sca les were valuable, acceptable, pleasant, n ice, fair, h onest, a nd

progressive. Cogni t ive r e s pons e s we re the n a s s e s s e d by m e a ns o f a

though t l i s t ing t e s t in wh ic h pa r t i c ipa n t s l i s t e d the though ts the y ha d

whi le r e a d ing the c om m un ic a t ion . T he y w e re g ive n 3 m in to c om ple te

th i s t a s k . A t the e nd o f the s tudy , pa r t i c ipa n t s r e tu rne d to the s e r e s pons e s

a nd s c o re d e a c h a s c ons ona n t , ne u t r a l , o r d i s s ona n t w i th the m e s s a ge .

Source evaluation. Att i tude s towa rd the s ourc e o f the c om m unic a -

t ion we re a s s e s s e d by us ing the s a m e s e ve n s e m a n t ic d i f f e r e n t ia l e va lua -

t ive s c ale s tha t we re us e d in the p os t t e s t a tt i tude m e a s ure . T hre e m a n ipu-

l a t io n c h e c k i t e m s - - w h i c h a s k e d p a r ti c i p a n ts t o i n d i c a t e th e e x t e n t t o

whic h the s ourc e ( a ) wa s a m inor i ty o r m a jo r i ty g roup , (b ) wa s pa r t

o f the i r s oc ia l g roup , o r ( c ) w a s a s m a l l r a d ic a l g roup - - fo l l ow e d . A f te r

a l l t a s ks we re c om ple te d , a l l pa r t i c ipa n t s we re tha nk e d a nd de br ie f e d .

R e s u l t s

D i r e c t a n d I n d i r e c t A t t i tu d e C h a n g e

I n t e r n a l c o n s i s te n c i e s o f b o t h p r e t e s t a n d p o s t t e s t m e a s u r e s

o f a t t i t u d e o n t h e d i r e c t i s s u e , g u n c o n t r o l , w e r e o f a c c e p t a b l e

m a g n i t u d e ( a = . 8 2 a n d . 9 3, r e s p e c ti v e l y ) . A c c o rd i n g l y , i t e m s

w e r e s u m m e d t o f o r m s c al e s. P r e t e s t to p o s t t e s t v a r i a t io n o n

g u n c o n t r o l a t t it u d e s w a s a s s e s s e d i n a 2 ( m a j o r i t y v s . i n - g r o u p

m i n o r i t y s o u r c e ) x 2 ( p r o o r c o n i n i ti a l a t ti t u d e , d e t e r m i n e d

b y m e a n s o f m e d i a n s p l it o n t h e p r e t e s t ) × 2 ( p r e t e s t - p o s t t e s t ,

a r e p e a t ed m e a s u r e ) A N O V A . P r e t e s t a n d p o s t t e s t s c o r es w e r e

s t a n d a r d i z e d t o f a c il i t at e c o m p a r i s o n . T h e A N O V A o n t h e f o c a l

a t t i t u d e r e v e a l e d a m a i n e f f e c t o f i n i t i a l a t t it u d e , F ( 1 , 7 1 ) =

6 8 . 8 2 , p < . 0 0 1 , w h i c h r e f l e c t s t h e a s s i g n m e n t o f p a r t i c i p a n t s

i n t o p r o - a n d a n t i - g u n - c o n t r o l g r o u p s o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r p r e t e st

s c o r e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e a n a l y s i s d i s c l o s e d a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c -

t i o n o f i n i t i al a t t it u d e w i t h p r e t e s t - p o s t t e s t m e a s u r e s , F ( 1 , 7 1 )

= 1 4 . 0 4 , p < . 0 0 1 . T h i s r e s u l t s u g g e s t s a r e g r e s s i o n e f f ec t .

T h o s e i n i t ia l l y i n f a v o r o f g u n c o n t r o l b e c a m e s o m e w h a t l e s s

f a v o r a b l e o n t h e p o s t t e s t , w h e r e a s t h o s e a n t a g o n i s t i c t o g u n

c o n t r o l o n t h e p r e t e s t b e c a m e s l i g h tl y m o r e p o s i t iv e l y d i s p o s e d

t o i t o n t h e p o s t t e s t . N o o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s w e r e o b s e r v e d .

O f m o r e t h e o r e t i c a l r e l e v a n c e is t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e i n d i -

r e c t a t ti t u d e. T w o a n a l y s e s w e r e u n d e r t a k e n t o c o n f i r m t h a t g a y

s o l d i e r s i n t h e m i l i t a r y w a s a n a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i r e c t is s u e , o n e

c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e f o c a l a t t i t u d e o f g u n c o n t r o l . T h e f i r st

t e s t , a c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , r e v e a l e d a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o i s s u e s , r ( 7 6 ) = . 4 3 , p < . 0 1 . N e x t ,

t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s a m o n g t h e s i x a t t it u d e s a s s e s s e d i n th e p r e t e s t

( a l l s c a le s w e r e o f a c c e p t a b l e i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y ) w e r e u s e d

a s p r o x y m e a s u r e s o f s i m i l a ri t y . T h e s i m i l a r it y m a t r i x w a s i n -

p u t t e d i n a M D S a n a l y si s , w h i c h p r o d u c e d a n i n t e r p r et a b l e t w o -

d i m e n s i o n a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n o f l o w s t r e s s ( s t r e s s = . 0 0 9 , R 2 =

. 9 9 9 ) . T h e i n t e r p o i n t d i st a n c e ( I D ) b e t w e e n t h e t w o c r i t i c a l

a t t it u d e s w a s v e r y l o w ( I D = 0 . 2 5 ) , a s in p r e v i o u s s t u d ie s i n

t h i s s er i es . T h e m e a n d i s t a n c e a m o n g t h e r e m a i n i n g p a i r s w a s

m u c h g r e a t e r ( I D = 1 . 5 2 ) . O n t h e b a si s o f t h e s e f i n d i ng s , h o m o -

s e x u a l s o l d i er s i n t h e m i l i t a r y w a s d e e m e d a n a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i -

r e c t a t t i t u d e o b j e c t .

A 2 ( s o u r c e ) x 2 ( i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e ) x 2 ( p r e t e s t - p o s t t e s t )

A N O V A c o m p u t e d o n t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d p r e t e s t ( a = 0 . 8 5 ) a n d

p o s t t e s t ( a = 0 . 9 1 ) i n d i r e c t a t t i t u d e s c o r e s r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t

m a i n e f f e c t s o f i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e , F ( 1 , 7 2 ) = 6 . 7 7 , p < . 0 5 , a n ds o u r c e s t a t u s , F ( 1, 7 2 ) = 3 . 8 9 , p < . 0 5 2 . I n i t ia l a t ti t u d e i n t e r-

a c t e d w i t h t h e r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e , F ( 1 , 7 2 ) = 8 . 0 1 , p < . 0 1 ,

a n d a S o u r c e x I n i t i a l A t t i t u d e x M e a s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n a l s o w a s

f o u n d , F ( 1 , 7 2 ) = 3 . 3 1 , p < . 0 7. O n t h e b a s i s o f t h i s p a t t e r n

o f r e s u l t s a n d p r i o r t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t io n s , t h e s e c o n d - o r d e r

i n t e r a c ti o n w a s i n v e s t i g a t e d f u r t h e r b y u s i n g s i m p l e e f f e c t s a n a l-

y s i s. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h S t u d y 1 , n o m o v e m e n t w a s o b s e r v e d o n

t h e i n d i r e c t a tt i t u de a m o n g p a r t i c i p a n t s e x p o s e d t o t h e m a j o r i t y

s o u r c e . T h e a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d n e i t h e r a s i g n i f i c a n t s i m p l e m a i n

e f f e c t o f i n i t i a l a t t i tu d e n o r a n i n t e r a c t i o n o f i n i t i a l a t t it u d e w i t h

m e a s u r e ( b o t h F < 1 ) .



958 A L V AR O A N D C R A N O

I n t h e g r o u p e x p o s e d t o t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e , b o t h

t h e s i m p l e m a i n e f f e c t o f i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e , F ( 1 , 3 6 ) = 6 . 7 4 , p <

. 0 5 , a n d t h e s i m p l e i n t e r a c t i o n o f i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e w i t h m e a s u r e ,

F ( 1 , 3 6 ) = 1 0 . 1 7 , p < . 0 0 5 , w e r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t . T h e s e

r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e th a t s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e o c c u r r e d f r o m p r e t e s t t o

p o s t t es t i n t h e g r o u p e x p o s e d t o t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y . I n t e r n a l

a n a l y s i s w i t h i n t h e t w o c o n d i t i o n s f o r m e d b y t h e c o m b i n a t i o no f i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e w i t h p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e i n i t i a l

a t t it u d e s t o w a r d g u n c o n t r o l r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t p r e t e s t t o p o s t -

t e s t m o v e m e n t o n a t t i tu d e s t o w a r d g a y s o l d ie r s a m o n g t h o s e

w h o r e c e i v e d a n i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y ' s m e s s a g e c o n t r a r y t o t h e i r

i n i t i a l b e l i e f s ( s t a n d a r d i z e d M p r e t e s t - p o s t t e s t a t t it u d e s c o r e s

= - . 4 1 5 a n d - . 0 7 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F ( 1 , 3 6 ) = 6 . 3 1 , p < . 02 .

C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f S t u d y 1 , t h e p r e s e n t a n a l y s i s re -

v e a l e d t h a t t h o se w h o r e c e i v e d a c o u n t e r a t t i tu d i n a l m e s s a g e o n

g u n c o n t r o l a t t r i b u t e d t o a n i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y c h a n g e d t h e i r

a t t i t u d e s o n t h e l i n k e d i n d i r e c t a t t i t u d e o b j e c t , g a y s o l d i e r s i n

t h e m i l i t a r y , i n a c o n s e r v a t i v e d i r e c t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t h r u s t

o f t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e y b e c a m e m o r e n e g a t i v e t o w a r d a d -

m i t t i n g g a y s o l d i er s t o t h e m i l i t a r y , d e s p i t e t h e a b s e n c e o f m o v e -

m e n t o n t h e d i r e c t i s s u e , g u n c o n t r o l .T h e a n a l y s i s d i s c l o s e d n o s i g n i f i c a n t p r e t e s t- t o - p o s tt e s t

c h a n g e b y t h o s e w h o r e c e i v e d a p ro a t t i t u d i n a l m e s s a g e f r o m t h e

i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y ( M s = 0 . 7 a n d 0 .5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F ( 1 , 3 6 )

= 3 . 8 8 , p < . 1 0 . S o u r c e x I n i t i a l A t t i t u d e A N O V A s o n t h e

r e m a i n i n g f o u r a t t i tu d e o b j e c t s , e u t h a n a s i a , t u i t i o n , b i r th c o n t r o l

a n d a b o r t i o n , r e v e a l e d n o s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e

e x p e r i m e n t a l t r e a tm e n t s .

p < . 0 0 2 . T h o s e w h o r e c e i v e d a m e s s a g e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n i t i a l

a t t i t u d e e v a l u a t e d t h e s o u r c e m o r e h i g h l y t h a n d i d t h o s e f o r

w h o m t h e s o u r c e ' s m e s s a g e w a s c o u n t e r a t t i tu d i n a l ( M = 2 3 . 8 ,

3 0 . 3 , r e s p e c t iv e l y , w i t h h i g h e r s c o r e s i n d i c a t i n g l e s s p o s i ti v e

e v a l u a t i o n s ) . N o o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e ct s w e r e f o u n d i n t h e

A N O V A o n s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n .

S o u r c e × I n i t i a l A t t i t u d e m a n i p u l a t i o n c h e c k A N O V A s s u g -g e s t t h a t t h e s o u r c e t r e a t m e n t w a s p e r c e i v e d a s i n t e n d e d . P a r t i c i -

p a n t s w e r e a s k e d i f t he s o u r c e w a s o f m a j o r i t y o r m i n o r i t y

s t a t u s , i f t h e s o u r c e w a s p a r t o f t h e i r g e n e r a l s o c i a l g r o u p , a n d

w h e t h e r i t w a s a s m a l l r a d i c a l g r o u p . A n A N O V A o n t h e f i r s t

m e a s u r e d i s c l o s e d a s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t o f s o u r c e s t a t u s ,

F ( 1 , 7 4 ) = 3 2 . 2 3 , p < . 0 01 . T h o s e e x p o s e d t o t h e m a j o r i t y

s o u r c e s a w i t as b e i n g o f g r e a t e r m a j o r i t y s t a t u s t h a n d i d t h o s e

i n t he m i n o r i t y s o u r c e c o n d i t i o n ( M = 4 . 0 a n d 2 . 1 , re s p e c t iv e l y ;

s c o r es c o u l d r a n g e f r o m 1 t o 7 ) . A n a l y s i s o f t h e s e c o n d m a n i p u -

l a t i o n c h e c k d i s c l o s e d a s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t f o r i n i t i a l a t t i -

t u d e , F ( 1 , 7 4 ) = 1 5 . 4 0 , p < . 0 0 1 . T h o s e w h o r e c e i v e d a n

a t t i t u d e - c o n s i s t e n t m e s s a g e w e r e m o r e l i k e l y to a g r e e t h a t t h e

s o u r c e w a s p a r t o f t h ei r g e n e ra l s o c ia l g r o u p ( M = 5 . 8 a n d 4 .3 ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . T h e r e w e r e n o s o u r c e s t a t u s e f f e c t s i n t h i s a n a l y -s i s ; h o w e v e r , b o t h s o u r c e s w e r e p a r t o f p a r t i c i p a n t s ' i n - g r o u p .

T h e f i n a l m a n i p u l a t i o n c h e c k a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d t h a t s o u r c e s t a tu s

h a d a s t r o n g i m p a c t o n p a r t i c i p a n t s ' a g r e e m e n t t h a t th e s o u r c e

w a s a s m a l l r a d i c a l g r o u p , F ( 1 , 7 4 ) = 2 3 . 3 7 , p < . 0 0 1 . T h o s e

f o r w h o m t h e m e s s a g e w a s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e m a j o r i t y s o u r c e

d i s a g r e e d m o r e w i t h t h i s s t a t e m e n t t h a n d i d t h o s e e x p o s e d t o

t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y ( M = 4 . 9 a n d 3 .1 , r e s p e c t i v e ly ) .

Cognitive Response Analysis

I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e c o g n i t i v e r e s p o n s e m e a s u r e s d i s c l o s e d

r e s u l t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e o r e t i ca l e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d S t u d y 1 . A

2 ( s o u r c e ) x 2 ( in i t i a l a t t i t u d e ) A N O V A o n n u m b e r s o f n e g a t i v e

t h o u g h t s g e n e r a t e d i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n r e v e a le d

t w o s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t s. P a r t i c i p a n ts f o r w h o m t h e ( a n t i - )

g u n c o n t r o l m e s s a g e w a s c o n t r a r y t o t h e i r i n i t i a l a t t it u d e s g e n e r -

a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t ly m o r e n e g a t i v e t h o u g h ts t h a n d i d t h o s e i n i n i t i a l

a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n ( M = 2 . 41 a n d 0 . 8 f o r n e g a -

t i v e t h o u g h t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F ( 1 , 7 4 ) = 1 9 . 5 8 , p < . 0 0 1 . M o r e

r e l e v a n t t o t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e r n s w a s t h e f i n d i n g t h a t t h o s e e x -

p o s e d t o t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y g e n e r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y f e w e r

n e g a t i v e t h o u g h t s t h a n d i d t h o s e w h o s e s o u r c e w a s o f m a j o r i t y

s t a t u s ( M = 1 . 2 a n d 2 .0 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , F ( 1 , 7 4 ) = 4 . 2 9 ,

p < .05 .

A n a l y s i s o f p o s i t iv e t h o u g h t s r e v e a l e d a f i r s t - o rd e r S o u r c e ×

I n i t i a l A t t i t u d e i n t e r a c t i o n , F ( 1 , 7 4 ) = 4 . 4 1 , p < . 0 5 . T h e m e a n

n u m b e r s o f p o s i t i v e t h o u g h t s g e n e r a t e d w i t h i n e a c h c o n d i t i o n

o f t h e d e s i g n a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 3 . A s w i t h t h e n e g a t i v e

t h o u g h t d a t a , t h e s e r e s u l t s s u p p o r t t h e C C M a n d i t s a s s o c i a t e d

l e n i e n c y c o n t r a c t h y p o t h e si s . P a r t i c i p a n t s e x p o s e d t o a m a j o r i t y

s o u r c e p r e s e n t i n g c o u n t e r a t t i t u d i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n g e n e r a t e d s i g -

n i f i c a n t l y f e w e r p o s i t i v e t h o u g h t s t h a n d i d t h o s e e x p o s e d t o t h e

m i n o r i t y s o u rc e . C o n s o n a n t w i t h e x p e c t a ti o n s , w h e n t h e s o u r c e

o f c o u n t e r a t t i t u d i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n w a s a n i n - g r o u p m i n o r i ty , t h e

c o n s i s t e n c y o r i n c o n s i s t e n c y o f i ts m e s s a g e w i t h e s t a b l i s h e d

b e l i e f s h a d n o e f f e c t o n p o s i t i v e t h o u g h t s .

A n a l y s i s o f p a r t ic i p a n t s ' e v a l u a t i o n s o f t h e m e s s a g e s o u r c e

r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t o f i n i t i a l a t t i t u d e , F ( 1 , 6 7 ) = 9 . 9 1 ,

Discussion

T h e c e n t r a l a n a l y s i s o f S t u d y 2 r e p l i c a te d t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e

f i r s t e x p e r i m e n t . I n b o t h s t u d i e s , t h e m a j o r i t y a p p e a r e d t o h a v e

l i t t l e , i f a n y , i m p a c t o n d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t a t t i t u d e c h a n g e . T h e

i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y , t o o , h a d l i t t l e d i r e c t i m p a c t . H o w e v e r , t h e i n -

g r o u p m i n o r i t y i n d u c e d i n d i r e c t c h a n g e o n t h e a t t i t u d e o b j e c t

t h a t w a s i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o t h e f o c a l a t t i t u d e , a s i n d i c a t e d

b y c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n d M D S a n a l y s i s . E v e n t h o u g h t h e fo c a l a n d

i n d i r e c t i s s u e s o f S t u d y 1 w e r e r e v e r s e d i n S t u d y 2 , t h e i n d i r e c t

c h a n g e r e s u l t w a s o b t a i n e d . T h i s r e s u l t i s n o t e w o r t h y f o r t w o

r e a s o n s . F i r s t , i t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e o r e t i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n s . N o

p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e w a s a t t a c he d t o t h e n o m i n a t i o n o f o n e

a t t i t u d e o b j e c t a s t h e f o c u s o f d i r e c t p e r s u a s i v e a t t a c k a n d i t s

p r o x i m a l c o u n t e r p a r t a s t h e i n d i r e c t o b j e c t . T h u s , i n t h e o r y ,

e i t h e r o f t h e t w o p r o x i m a l o b j e c t s c o u l d s e r v e a s d i r e c t o r i n d i -

T a b l e 3

Mean Numbers o f Positive Thoughts Generated

as a Consequence of Treatment Condition

Source status

Init ia l a t t itude Majori ty Mino ri ty

Con trary to mes sage 1.OOa 2.59bIn accord with message 2.60b 2.32b

Note. Entries with different subscripts were significantly different atp < .05.



INDIRECT MINORITY INFLUENCE 95 9

r e c t l oc i o f pe r s ua s i on . S t u d i e s 1 a nd 2 c on f i r m e d t h i s

e xpe c t a t i on .

A s e c ond f e a t u r e o f t he r e s u l t s a l s o i s w o r t hy o f c ons i de r a t i on .

M o r e t ha n m e r e l y r e p l i c a t i ng t he i n i t i a l r e s u l t s , the f i nd i ngs f r om

St ud y 2 s ugge s t t ha t t he e a r l i e r fi nd i ngs a r e no t a t t r i bu t a b l e t o

a s pe c i f i c o r de r i ng o f a t t i tude ob j e c t s . T o be s u r e , w e c ho s e t he

ob j e c t s w i t h c a r e t o e ns u r e t he y s a t i s f i e d t he r e qu i r e m e n t s t ha tt h e y b e c o r r e l a t e d , p r o x i m a l i n m u l t id i m e n s i o n a l s p a ce , a n d n o t

o b v i o u s l y a s s o c i a t e d o n a n y l o g i c a l o r n e c e s s a r y b a s i s . T h e

r e p l i c a t i on o f r e s u l t s de s p i t e t he r e ve r s a l o f f oc a l a nd i nd i r e c t

a t t i t ude ob j e c t s s ugge s t s t ha t t he o r i g i na l f i nd i ngs w e r e no t t he

o u t c o m e o f a n o p p o r t u n i s t i c a ss o c i a ti o n .

T w o a d d i t i ona l f e a t u r e s o f t he r e s u l t s de s e r ve m e n t i on . F i r s t ,

t h e A N O V A d i s c l o s e d th a t i n d i r e c t c h a n g e w a s e v i d e n t o n l y

a m o n g t h o s e f o r w h o m t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y ' s f o c a l m e s s a g e

w a s c oun t e r a t t i t ud i na l . T h i s i s s e ns i b l e if , a s hypo t he s i z e d , i nd i -

r e c t c ha nge i s t he r e s u l t o f t he s t r uc t u r a l l y de s t a b i l i z i ng i n f lu -

e nc e o f a n e l a bo r a t e d c oun t e r a t t i t ud i na l m e s s a ge . B u t s uc h a

r e s u l t w a s no t a ppa r e n t l y e v i de n t i n S t udy 1 , i n w h i c h i n i t i a l

a t t i tude w a s n o t i m p l i c a t e d in t he c r it i c a l Sou r c e X T a s k x

M e a s u r e i n t e r a c t i on . I n i n t e g r a t i ng t he s e f i nd i ngs , i t i s i m po r t a n tt o r e a l i z e t ha t t he a n t i ga y m e s s a ge w a s c oun t e r a t t i t ud i na l f o r

t he m a j o r i t y o f pa r t i c ipa n t s i n S t udy 1 , i n w h i c h t he m e a n s c o r e

o f 159 o f 222 r e s pon de n t s w a s o n t he ne ga t i ve s ide o f t he p r e t e s t

a t t i tude s c a l e ' s nom i na l m i dp o i n t . T hus , t he ind i r e c t c ha nge

f o u n d i n t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i ty , s u b j e c ti v e j u d g m e n t c o n d i t i o n

o f S t udy 1 is pa r t l y a t t r i bu t a b l e to t he f a c t t ha t m o s t f ound t he

m i n o r i t y ' s pe r s ua s i ve m e s s a g e i nc ons i s t e n t w i t h t he i r be l i e f s . I n

S t udy 2 , i n w h i c h a t t i t ude s on t he f oc a l i s s ue w e r e m or e no r -

m a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d , t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f m e s s a g e i n c o n g r u i t y i n

i nduc i ng i nd i r e c t e f f e c t s w a s e v i de n t .

T he r e s p ons e s o f pa r t i c i pa n t s w ho r e c e i ve d a be l i e f - c ons i s t e n t

m e s s a ge a t t r i bu t e d t o t he i n - g r oup m i no r i t y a l s o de s e r ve s m e n-

t i on . O n t he i nd i r e c t i s s ue , t he s e i nd i v i dua l s t e nde d t o m ove i n

a d i r e c t i on oppos i t e t ha t s ugge s t e d i n t he f oc a l c om m uni c a t i on .

T h i s t r e nd on l y a pp r oa c he d s t a t i s ti c a l s i gn i f i c a nc e a nd w a s no t

p r e d i c t e d , bu t i t a ppe a r s t ha t t he t a r ge t s w ho f ound t he m s e l ve s

i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h a p u r p o r t e d r a d i c a l ( i n - g r o u p ) m i n o r i t y m i g h t

h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o d i s t a n c e t h e m s e l v e s f r o m t h e p o s i t i o n b y

m ov i ng a w a y f r om t he s ou r c e on t he i nd i r e c t a t t i t ude . T h i s i s

a n a d m i t t e d l y s pe c u l a t i ve i n t e rp r e t a t i on , bu t i t m i gh t be w or t hy

o f f u r t he r s t udy a nd i s p r e s e n t e d he r e i n hope s t ha t i t m i gh t

s t i m u l a t e s uc h r e s e a r c h .

T he c og n i t i ve r e s pon s e da t a a r e i n a c c o r d w i t h t he o r e t i c a l

e x p e c t a ti o n s , re p l i c a te t h e f in d i n g s o f S t u d y 1 ( a n d o f A l v a r o &

C r a n o , 1 9 9 6 ) , a n d r e i n f o r c e t h e C C M - b a s e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f

i nd i r e c t m i no r i t y i n f l ue nc e . T he a n a l y s i s r e ve a l e d t ha t c oun t e r a t -

t i t ud i na l m e s s a ge s c a us e d m or e ne ga t i ve t hough t s t ha n d i d p r o -a t t i t ud i na l c om m uni c a t i ons . M or e t o t he po i n t , t hos e w hos e m e s -

s a ge w a s a t t r i bu t e d t o t he i n - g r oup m i no r i t y ge ne r a t e d s i gn i f i -

c a n t l y f e w e r ne ga t i ve t hough t s t ha n d i d t hos e w hos e m e s s a ge

w a s p r e s e n t e d b y t h e m a j o r i t y s o u r c e . T h e a n a l y s i s o f p o s i t iv e

t h o u g h t s a l s o p r o m o t e d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n th a t t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r -

i t y i s a c c o r de d g r e a t e r l e n i e nc y t ha n t he m a j o r i t y , w h i c h i s

c ons i s t e n t w i t h e xpe c t a t i ons . T he s t a t u s o f t he s ou r c e o f a c oun -

t e r a t t i t ud i na l pos i t i on ha d a s t r ong i m pa c t on pos i t i ve t hough t

p r oduc t i on . Fe w e r pos i t i ve t hough t s w e r e ge ne r a t e d w he n t he

m a j o r i t y w a s r e s pons i b l e fo r t he be l i e f - d i s c r e pa n t m e s s a ge . Fu r -

t he r , w he n t he m e s s a ge w a s a t t r i bu t e d t o t he i n - g r oup m i no r i t y ,

i t s c ons i s t e nc y o r i nc ons i s t e nc y w i t h e s t a b l i s he d be l i e f s d i d no t

a f f e c t t he ge ne r a t i on o f pos i t i ve t hough t s . I n c om bi na t i on , t he

c ogn i t i ve r e s pons e da t a s ug ge s t a ge ne r a l le n i e nc y i n r e s pond i n g

t o t h e i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y : T h e y w e r e m e t w i t h f e w e r n e g a t iv e

t hough t s ; t he y e l i c i t e d a s m a n y pos i t i ve t hough t s a s t he m a j o r i t y

d i d w he n t he i r m e s s a ge w a s c ons i s t e n t w i t h t a r ge t s ' b e l i e f s ; and ,

un l i ke t he m a j o r i t y s ou r c e , pos i t i ve t hough t p r oduc t i on w a s no td i m i n i s h e d w h e n t h e m i n o r i t y a d v o c a t e d a p o s i t i o n i n c o n si s te n t

w i t h r e c e i ve r s ' a t t i t ude s . U n l i ke S t udy 1 , no s ou r c e e va l ua t i on

d i f f e r e nc e s f a vo r i ng t he i n - g r oup m i no r i t y w e r e d i s c ove r e d i n

S t udy 2 . H a d a n o f f s e t c on t r o l g r oup be e n u s e d , r e s u l t s s i m i l a r

t o t hos e o f S t udy 1 m i gh t ha ve be e n ob t a i ne d . R e c a l l t ha t t he

o f f s e t c on t r o l c om pa r i s on r e ve a l e d t ha t a s s oc i a t i on w i t h t he

a n t i g a y m e s s a g e a p p e a r e d t o r e s u l t i n s o m e d e g r e e o f s o u r c e

d e r o g a t i o n f o r t h e m a j o r i t y s o u r ce b u t n o t f o r t h e i n - g r o u p m i -

no r i t y . T he a na l y s i s o f s ou r c e e va l ua t i on d i d d i s c l o s e t ha t

s ou r c e s w ho p r e s e n t e d i n f o r m a t i on c ons i s t e n t w i t h e s t a b l i s he d

be l i e f s w e r e e va l ua t e d m or e pos i t i ve l y , bu t m i no r i t y s t a t u s d i d

no t a c c e n t ua t e t h i s e f f e c t.

S t u d y 3

A l t h o u g h t h e r e s e a r c h t o t h i s p o i n t h a s s u p p o r t e d t h e C C M

a nd i t s a s s oc i a t e d l e n i e nc y c on t r a c t hypo t he s i s , i t ha s f a i l e d t o

de m ons t r a t e a ny a pp r e c i a b l e i n f l ue nc e a t t r i bu t a b l e t o t he m a j o r -

i t y , e ve n on t hos e a t t i t ude s t ha t a r e t he d i r e c t f oc us o f pe r s ua s i on .

T h i s l a c k o f m a j o r i ty i n f l u en c e m i g h t s t r ik e s o m e a s u n e x p e c t e d .

H ow e ve r , a l t hough s om e pa s t r e s e a r c h ha s s how n t ha t t he m a j o r -

i t y c a n a f f e c t a t t i t ude s a s s e s s e d i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r a n i n f l ue nc e

a t t e m p t , t he c ons i s t e nc y o f s uc h e f f e c t s i s f a r f r om c om pl e t e

( M u g n y & P e r e z , 1 9 9 1 ; W o o d e t a l ., 1 9 9 4 ) . S t u d y 3 w a s c o n -

c e r ne d w i t h t he ba s i s o f m a j o r i t y i n f l ue nc e e f f e c t s . I t w a s i n -

t e nde d t o de s c r i be t he c ond i t i ons unde r w h i c h t he m a j o r i t y w i l l

p r e va i l a nd unde r w h i c h i t w i l l f a i l a nd , by s o do i ng , r e ve a l t he

r e a s ons f o r t he l a c k o f m a j o r i t y e f f e c t i n t he s tud i e s de s c r i be d

thus far .

T w o c o m p e l l i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s o f m a j o r i ty i n f lu e n c e w e r e u s e d

a s t he t he o r e t i c a l ba s e s o f S t udy 3 . T he f i r st , a dva nc e d by M os -

c ov i c i ( 19 85 ) , s ugge s t s t ha t the m a j o r i t y p r e va i l s be c a u s e i t i s

c a p a b l e o f l e v e li n g s a n c t io n s f o r n o n c o m p l i a n c e . S a n c t i o n s c a n

be i n t he f o r m o f i s o l a t i on fr om t he g r oup , s o g r oup i de n t i t y

i s s u e s m a y a l s o b e c o m e s a l i e n t i n m a j o r i t y c o m p l i a n c e ( c f .

D e u t s c h & G e r a r d , 1955 ) . T he m a j o r i t y p r e va i l s be c a us e i t c a n

c oe r c e a nd pun i s h . I t is obv i ous t ha t , t o be c a pa b l e o f i m po s i ng

s a nc t i ons , t he m a j o r i t y m a s t be a b l e t o obs e r ve t he r e s pons e o f

a t a r ge t t o i t s r e c om m e nda t i ons o r de m a nds . I f t he c a pa c i t y t o

m o n i t o r i s l a c k in g , a f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f M o s c o v i c i ' s

t he o r y i s no t m e t . A no t he r e xp l a na t i on o f d i r e c t , i m m e d i a t em a j o r i t y i n fl u e n c e is b a s e d o n s o c i a l i d e n t it y t h e o ry ( A b r a m s &

H ogg , 1990 ; H ogg & A b r a m s , 1988 ; T ur ne r, 1991 ; T u r ner et a l .,

1 9 8 7 ) , w h i c h p o s i t s t h a t p e o p l e c o m p l y w i t h t h e m a j o r i t y n o t

be c a us e o f no r m a t i ve s oc i a l p r e s s u r e , bu t t o de ve l op o r m a i n t a i n

s y m b o l i c m e m b e r s h i p i n a v a l u e d s o c i a l g r o u p . T h e v a l u e o f

g r o u p m e m b e r s h i p c a n b e m a d e s a l i e n t i n m a n y w a y s , i n c l u d in g

threa t .

S t udy 3 w a s de s i gn e d t o c a p i t a l i z e on t he s e in s i gh t s s o a s t o

i nve s t i ga t e m a j o r i t y i n f lue nc e a nd t he c ogn i t i ve m e c ha n i s m s t ha t

unde r l i e i t . I n t h i s i nve s t iga t i on , pa r t i c i pa n t s w e r e e xp os e d t o a

pe r s ua s i ve m e s s a ge t ha t a r gue d a ga i n s t a l l ow i ng hom os e xua l



96 0 ALVARO AND CRANO

soldiers in the military (the message of Study 1). In all cases,

the message was attributed to an in-group majority. In one exper-

imental condition, the majority was pres ent ed as it was in Stud-

ies 1 and 2. On the basis of earlier results, little influence was

anticipated in this treatment variation, which might be consid-

ered a baseline or control condition. In the second source varia-

tion (the surveillance condition), participants were informedthat they would have to d efend their positions to members of the

majority group. In the third treatment condition, the participants'

social group ( the majorit y) was threatened. In addition to varia-

tions in attitudes on the issue under direct persuasive attack

(homo sexual soldiers in the military), p articipants' indirect atti-

tudes, source evaluations, and cognitive respon ses (counterargu-

ments, recall, and retention) also were gathered. The overall

pattern of direct and indirect attitude change, source evaluation,

and message elaboration should supply useful insights into the

processes that underlie majority influence.

M e t h o d

incredibly stupid," and "The study must have been run by U of A

students. They're all a bunch of stuck up id iots!" Participants wrote a

brief reaction to these comments and, after doing so, went on to read

the material provided in the standard replication condition.

M e a s u r e s

After reading the strongly written persuasive message that arguedagainst homosexual soldiers in the military, all participants evaluated

six attitude objects through the use o f a series of 7-point semantic

differential scales, the positive poles of which were defined by the words

good, kind, beautiful, wise, mora l right, and positive. The six attitude

objects were those that were used in Study 2.

Following attitude measurement, participants were given 3 min to list

all the thoughts that occurred to them as they read the persuasive mes-

sage. They then listed as many specific points presented in the message

as they could recall and completed a 12-item recognition test on the

material they had read (a = .66). The message source was evaluated

on the same seven semantic differential scales that were used in assessing

attitudes. After participants scored their thought listings, they were

thanked and dismissed.


A sample of 68 undergraduate students from the University of Arizona

served as participants. They were studied in groups of 4 to 10 and

received course credit for participation. As in the earlier studies, the

experimental materials, including treatments and measures, were con-

tained in booklet s assembled before the experimental sessions began.

Booklets were randomized and supplied to participants at the beginning

of each session, effectively keeping experimenters unaware of treatment

condition.

T r e a t m e n t V a r i a t i o n s

Standard replication (baseline o r control condition). In the standard

repli cation condition, participants read a message that was similar to

that used in the earlier studies:

On the next page you will be presented with an essay arguing

against homosexuals in the military. A recent, comprehensive survey

conducted at the University of Arizona found that the vast majority

of students at the U of A strongly agreed with the essay. Approxi-

mately 88% of the students at the U of A strongly agree that homo-

sexuals should not be allowed in the military. We would like you

to read and consider the same essay. Later we will ask you some

questions about your reactions. Obviously, the issue of homosexuals

in the military involves considerable controversy, with emotional

arguments on both sides. Ultimately, peopl e's judgments on the

issue are probably subjective. We would like you to share your

feelings on this issue.

Surveillance. Participants in the public surveillance condi tions readthis same introduction and were then told that they would be expected

to discuss their answers with members of the majority in a group discus-

sion to be held immediately after they had completed the questionnaire.

Identity threat. In the identity threat condition, participants first read

a bri ef series of complimentary facts about University of Arizona stu-

dents. They learned that among the competing state universities, Univer-

sity of Arizona students had garnered the majority of competitive state-

sponsored scholarships, had high school grade point averages that sur-

passed those of students in the other schools, and so on. Following this

was a ser:'es of derogatory reactions attributed to students from the two

major competing state universities who were said to have written such

things as, "That's ridiculous, everyone knows that U of A students are

R e s u l ~

D i r e c t A t t i t u d e s

Participants' seven semantic differential evaluative response s

on the issue of homosexual soldiers in the military, the focus

of the persuasive message, were summed to form an overall

attitude score (a = .95). The ANOVA on this index revealed a

significant difference as a result of source, F(2 , 63) -- 3.29,

p < .05. Participants in the surveillance condition were least

influenced by the majority sour ce's message (M = 24.8; scores

could range from 7 to 49, with higher scores indicating greater

influence), whereas those in the identity threat treatment were

most influenced (M = 31.9). A pla nned contrast of these means

revealed a statistically significant difference between mean atti-tude scores, F( 1, 63) = 5.86, p < .02. Attitu des of partic ipant s

in the baseline condition (M = 26.2) were intermediate to these

two g roups and diff ered from those of the identity threat partici-

pants, F( 1, 63 ) = 3.77, p < .06. The mea n ~ttitudes of baselin e

and surveillance groups were the same, F( 1, 63) = 0.23. In

combination, the attitudes of the identity threat group differed

significantly from those of the combined baseline and surveil-

lance groups, F( 1, 63) = 6.34, p < .02. The pattern of findings

that follow supplies som e insight into the basis of these attitude

variations.

I n d i r e c t A t t i t u d e s

Analyses of participants' indirect attitudes revealed no differ-ences across treatment conditions on any o f the indirect attitude

objects. The lack of indirect influence was ev ident even though

the posttest correlation between the focal and indirectly impli-

cated attitude that was used in prior studies (gun control) was

similar to that found in the earlier experiments, r(6 5) = 0.41,

p < .001.

C o g n i t i v e R e s p o n s e s

There were no treatment-related differences in the numbers

of positive or negative thoughts generated during the message,



INDIRECT MINORITY INFLUENCE 961

nor was there a significant treatment-related difference in the

ratio of negative (or positive) to total thoughts or a between-

groups difference in number of total thoughts. In addition, no

differences were discovered among the three treatment condi-

tions in the number of arguments participants recalled. There

were also no significant differences on the recognition test as a

consequence of treatment condition. Variations in direct influ-ence on attitude do not appear attributable to differences in

message elaboration or retention.

S o u r c e E v a l u a t i o n

Although the overall ANOVA on source eva luations revealed

a marginally significant effect of message source, F(2 , 58) =

2.35, p < .10, a more fine-gra ined analysis produced results

that suggest that threats to social or group identity produced

enhanced source evaluation. Participants in the identity threat

condit ion were more positively disposed toward the source than

were those in the surveillance condition, (M = 25.6 and 29.2,

respectively; lower scores represent more favorable source eval-

uati ons), F( 1, 58) = 4.37, p < .05. Attitudes of participantsin the baseline condition (M = 28.3) were intermediate to the

two groups and did not differ from either. In combination, the

identity threat group was more positively disposed toward the

source than were the other conditions, F( 1, 58) = 4.34,

p < .05.

D i s c u s s i o n

This study was undertaken to help detail the circumstances

under which a majority might prevail in a social influence con-

text and the cognitive mechanisms that underlie change. The

results suggest that the majority can induce change when influ-

ence targets' membership in the majority is threatened or other-

wise made salient. The majority became a powerful force for

compliance when it was derogated, thereby accentuating the

target's membership in the threatened group. Such a result as-

sumes that the recipients considered themselves members of

the targeted group, a reasonable assumption given participant

eligib ility requirements. In some ways, this result helps to ex-

plain the lack of reaction to the majority source in the earlier

studies. As suggested earlier, the majority migh t have served as

a membership, but not a reference, group for the participants in

these studies. In such a case, its capacity to motivate change

was not great. When the group was derogated by outsiders,

however, the salience or importance of the group grew, and its

influence was enhanced accordingly.

The subsidiary analyses suggest that the enhancement of ma-jority influence by means of identity threat was not mediated by

message elaborat ion and acceptance but by a defensive reaction

grounded on considerations of group solidarity. Although parti-

cipants in the identity threat condition were more in accord with

the in-group majority source after message presentation than

were participants in the other treatment conditions, they did

not remember more of the message, their attitudes were not

accompan ied by systematic changes in indirectly implicated atti-

tudes, and they did not counterargue less. In no instance were

any differences in enhanced message processing observed

among participants in the three treatment conditions. This sug-

gests that posttreatment (direct) attitude was a function of nor-

mative rather than information-based influence.

The identi ty threat participants were more positively disposed

toward the source than were those in the other treatment groups.

This pattern of results suggests that this group's posttreatment

attitude was not a consequence of message learning, wherein

the source's communication was elaborated and its content usedto restructure the attitude, but rather a surface movement under-

taken to show solidari ty with, or bolster, a threatened in-group.

Future meta-analytic studies of attitude change might do well

to differentiate the social identity from the normative influence

explanations of majority influence effects.

The implications of Study 3 are consistent with the indirect

attitude change findings of Studies 1 and 2. In both earlier

studies, change occurred only in those circumstances that in-

volved an in-group influence source that was evaluated posi-

tively by participants. To be sure, the change observed in the

earlier studies was indirect, but it was consistent, predictable,

and induced by a source of positive valence. When out-group

sources were used. no change--direct or indirect--was ever

observed. When the majority appeared to levy undue or illegiti-mate change pressure, it too was dismissed or derogated.

General Discussion

The picture that emerges from the total pattern of results of

this research series extends the findings of earlier investigations

and is compatible with expectations based on consideration of

the C C M and its associated leniency contract. The results illumi -

nate the mechanisms by which indirect influence effects emerge.

They also point to direct ions for future investigation. Consisten t

with the results of prior experimentation, the analysis of Study

1 revealed no evidence for direct persuasion by minor ity sources

in any of the sourc e-ta sk combinations we used. The communi-

cation that urged a ban on homosexual soldiers in the military

had no (direct) impact.

In the case of indirect influence, clear differences emerged as

a consequence of source characteristics and the type of judg ment

required. When the judgment was characterized as subjective,

the in-group minority had a powerful effect on receivers' atti-

tudes toward gun control, which preliminary study indicated

was linked to the issue under direct persuasive assault even

though the linkage did not appear accessible to participants

(Preliminary Study 2). This linked attitude change result is

important, for it suggests a spread of influence effect within

attitude constel lations that may have implications for new theo-

retical understandings and for the development of new tech-

niques of attitude change. Studies 1 and 2 provide suggestiveevidence for the mechanisms underlying this change of linked

beliefs process in their measures of cognitive responses (thought

listing) and source evaluation. Let us consider the manner in

which the conjunctive operations of these mechanisms might

foster change.

The CCM holds that receivers will be more susceptible to

in-group sources on issues thought to involve subjective (vs.

objective) judgments. This effect is exaggerated in circum-

stances involving sources of in-group minority status or in-

group sources who profess a minority position. This enhanced

impact occurs because minority status lends distinctiveness to





I N D I R E C T M I N O R I T Y I N F L U E N C E 963

a n d o t h e r s (e . g . , M u c c h i - F a i n a , M a a s s , & V o l p a t o , 1 9 9 0 ; V o l -

p a t o e t a l. , 1 9 9 0 ) s u g g e s t s t h a t f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e re n t t h o u g h t

p r o c e s s e s e n s u e a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f c o n t a c t w i t h m i n o r i t y ( v s .

m a j o r i t y ) s o u r c e s, p r o c e s s e s t h a t m a y e n h a n c e , r a t h e r t h a n r e-

t a r d , c o n v e r s i o n o r s o c i a l i n f l u e n ce . H o w e v e r , n o t a n y m i n o r i t y

w i l l a c t iv a t e s u c h p r o c e s se s . T h e m i n o r i t y m a s t b e i n - g r o u p .

O u t - g r o u p m i n o r i t i e s t h a t p r e s e n t a p o s i t i o n a t v a ri a n c e w i t ht h a t o f t h e r e c e iv e r a p p e a r t o s t i m u l a t e c o u n t e r a r g u m e n t a t i o n

a n d d e r o g a t i o n . W i t h i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y s o u r c e s, a d i f f e re n t p a t -

t e r n i s e v i d e n t . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' e l e v a t e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i r m e s s a g e

i s a c c o m p a n i e d b y a d i m i n u t i o n o f n e g a t i v e t h o u g h t s ( o r a n

e n h a n c e m e n t o f p o s i t iv e t h o u g h t s ) a l o n g w i t h a p p r o v a l o f t h e

s o u r c e o r , a t a m i n i m u m , a n a t t e n u a t i o n o f s o u r c e d e r o g a t i o n .

T h e c o n f l u e n c e o f t h e s e a p p a r e n t ly a p p r o b a t i o n a r y p r o c e s s e s

d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y l e a d t o d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e . R a t h e r , i t a p p e a r s

t h a t m a j o r i t y r e c e i v e rs o f a n i n - g r o u p m i n o r i t y ' s c o u n t e r a t t i t u d i -

n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n a r e c o n t e n t to " l i v e a n d l e t l i v e ." T h e y

a p p e a r n o t t o a s s u m e a d e f e n s i v e p o s t u r e w h e n a n i n - g r o u p

m i n o r i t y p r e s e n t s a c o u n t e r a t t i t u d i n a l m e s s a g e b u t r a t h e r a p p e a r

t o a c c e p t t h e l e g i t i m a c y o f d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n . T h e m a j o r i t y

r e c e i v er a p p r o a c h e s s u c h c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h r e la t i v e o p e n -

n e s s. T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t s u c h m e s s a g e s a r e a c c e p t e d o r e v e n

d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n t i a l . R a t h e r , t h e y a r e n o t c o u n t e r a r g u e d s t r o n g l y ,

a n d t h e s o u r c e i s n o t v i e w e d w i t h d i s d a i n . E v e n t h o u g h d i r e c t

i n f l u e n c e is r e s i st e d , s u c h a n a c c e p t a n c e o f d i f f e r e n c e a n d t h e

c o n s e q u e n t p r o c e s s i n g o f c o u n t e r a t t it u d i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n m a y d e -

s t a b i l i z e t h e b e l i e f s t r u c t u r e . T h i s d e s t a b i l i z a t i o n , i n t u r n , m o t i -

v a t e s c o m p e n s a t o r y c h a n g e o n r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s . A c c o m m o d a -

t i o n o n r e l a t e d i s s u e s i s u n t h r e a t e n i n g a n d d e f u s e s t h e u n e a s i n e s s

t h a t e n s u e s f r o m t h e p r o c e s s e s t h u s d e s c r i b e d .

R e f e r e n c e s

A b r a m s , D ., & H o g g , M . A . ( E d s . ) . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Social identity theory:Constructive and critical advances. Ne w York: Ha rve s te r W he a ts he a f .

Ae b is c he r, V . , He ws tone , M. , & He nde r s on , M. (19 84) . Min or i ty in f lu -

e nc e a nd m u s ic a l p re fe re nc e : Innova t ion by c onv e r s ion no t c oe rc ion .

European Journ al o f Social Psychology, 14, 2 3 - 3 3 .

A lva ro , E . M. , & Cra no , W . D . (19 96) . Cogn i t ive r e s pons e s to m inor i ty

o r m a jo r i ty -ba s e d c om m unic a t ions : F a c to r s tha t unde r l ie m inor i ty in -

f luence . British Journal o f Socia l Psychology, 35, 1 0 5 - 1 2 1 .

Bre wer , M. B . , & Cra no , W . D . (199 4) . Socialpsychology. M i n n e a p o l i s /

St. Paul: West.

C la rk , R . D . , I II , & Ma a s s , A . (19 88) . S oc ia l c a te gor iz a t ion in m inor i ty

in f lue nc e : T he c a s e o f hom os e xua l i ty . European Journal of Social

Psychology, 18, 3 4 7 - 3 6 4 .

Cra no , W . D . (1994 ) . C on te x t , c om pa r i s on , a nd c ha nge : Me thodo log ic a l

a nd the o re t i c a l c on t r ibu t ions to a the o ry o f m inor i ty ( a nd m a jo r i ty )

in f lue nc e . In S . Mos c ov ic i , A . Muc c h i -F a ina , & A . Ma a s s (E ds . ) ,Minority Influence ( p p . 1 7 - 4 6 ) . C h i c a g o : N e l s o n -H a l l .

C r a n o , W . D . , & A l v a r o , E . M . ( i n p r e s s ) . T h e c o n t e x t /c o m p a r i s o n

m ode l o f s oc ia l in f lue nc e : Me c ha n is m s , s t ruc tu re , a nd l inka ge s tha t

unde r l i e ind i r e c t a t t i tude c ha nge . In M. He ws ton e & W . S t ro be (E ds . ) ,

European review of social psych ology ( Vol . 8 ) . Ch ic he s te r , E ng la nd :

Wiley.

Cra no , W . D . , & Bre we r, M. B . (198 6) . Principles an d methods of social

research. B o s t o n : A l l y n & B a c o n .

Cra no , W . D . , Gore nf lo , D . W . , & S ha c ke l fo rd , S . L . (198 8) . Ove r jus t i -

f i c a tion , a s s um e d c ons e ns us , a nd a t t i tude c ha nge : F ur the r inve s t iga t ion

of the inc e n t ive -a rous e d a m b iva le nc e hypo the s i s . Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 55, 1 2 - 2 2 .

Cra no , W . D . , & Ha n nu la -Bra l , K . A . (199 4) . Con te x t /c a te gor iz a t ion

m ode l o f s oc ia l in f lue nc e : Minor i ty a nd m a jo r i ty in f lue nc e in the

fo rm a t ion o f a nove l r e s pons e no rm . Journal o f Experimental Social

Psychology, 30, 2 4 7 - 2 7 6 . -

De u ts c h , M. , & Ge ra rd , H . B . (1955) . A s tudy o f no rm a t ive a nd in fo r -

m a t iona l s oc ia l in f lue nc e upon ind iv idua l u dgm e n t . Journal o f Abnor-

real and Social Psychology, 51, 6 2 9 - 6 3 6 .

Ell is , R. J . , Olson, J . M. , & Zan na , M. P. ( 1983 ) . S te reoty pic persona li ty

in fe re nc e s fo l lowing ob je c t ive ve r s us s ub je c t ive judgm e n ts o f be au ty.

Canadian Journal o f Behavioural Science, 15, 3 5 - 4 2 .

Fes tinger , L . (1957) . A theory o f cognitive dissonance. S ta nfo rd , CA:

S ta n fo rd Un ive r s i ty P re s s.

Fink, E . L . , & K aplowitz , S . A. ( 1993 ) . Os c il la t ion in be lie fs and cogni-

t ive ne tworks . In G . A . B a rne t t & W . Ric ha rds (E ds . ) , Progress in

communication sciences ( v o l . 1 2 , p p . 2 4 7 - 2 7 2 ) . N o r w o o d , N J :

Able x .

Ga f f ie , B . (19 92) . T he p ro c e s s e s o f m inor i ty in f lue nc e in a n ide o log ic a l

c onf ron ta t ion . Political Psychology, 13, 4 0 7 - 4 2 7 .

Gore nf lo , D . W . , & Cra no , W . D . (19 89) . J udgm e n ta l s ub je c t iv i ty /ob je c -

t iv i ty a nd loc us o f c ho ic e in s oc ia l c om pa r i s on . Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 57, 6 0 5 - 6 1 4 .

He ide r , E (1 958 ) . The psyc holo gy of interpersonal relations. New York:Wiley.

H o g g , M . A . , & A b r a m s , D . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . Social identifications. L o n d o n :

Routledge.

Hov land, C. I . , Janis , I . L . , & Kelley, H. H. (1 95 3) . Communicat ion and

persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale Univers i ty Press .

Jones , E . E . , Wood , G. C. , & Qu attron e , G. A. ( 1981 ) . Perce ive d var i-

a b i l i ty o f pe r s ona l c ha ra c te r i s t i c s in in -g roups a nd ou t -g roups : T he

ro le o f knowle dge a nd e va lua t ion . Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 7 , 5 2 3 - 5 2 8 .

J udd , C . M. , & Kros n ic k , J . A . (1988) . T he s t ruc tu ra l ba s e s o f c ons i s -

t e nc y a m o ng po l i t i c a l a t ti tude s : E f fe c t s o f po l i t i c a l e xpe r t i s e a nd a t t i -

tude imp ortan ce . In A. R. Pra tkanis , S . J . Breckle r , & A. G. Gree nw ald

( E d s . ) , Attitude structure an d func tion ( pp. 99 - 128 ) . H il lsda le , NJ:

E r lba um .

Ka p la n , M. E (1 989 ) . T a s k , s i tua t iona l , a nd pe r s ona l de te rm ina n ts o fin f lue nc e p roc e s s e s in g roup de c i s ion m a k ing . Advances in Group

Processes, 6, 8 7 - 1 0 5 .

Ke l le y , H . H . (19 52) . T he tw o func t ions o f r e f e re nc e g roups . In G . E .

S wa ns on , T . M. Ne w c om b, & E . L . Ha r t l e y (E ds . ) , Readings in social

psycho logy (pp . 410 -4 14 ) . Ne w York : Ho l t.

K r u g l a n sk i , A . W . , & M a c k ie , D . M . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . M a j o r i t y an d m i n o r i t y

in f lue nc e: A judgm e n ta l p roc e s s a na lys i s . In W . S t roe be & M. H e w-

s tone (E ds . ) , European review ofsocialpsychology (Vol. 1 , pp. 22 9-

261 ) . C hiches te r , England : Wiley.

Krus ka l , J . B . (1964a ) . Mul t id im e ns iona l s c a l ing by op t im iz ing good-

ne s s o f f i t to a nonm e t r ic hypo the s i s . Psychometrika, 29, 1 - 2 7 .

Krus ka l , J . B . (19 64b ) . N onm e t r ic m ul t id im e ns iona l s c a l ing : A num e r i -

c a l m e thod . Psychometrika, 29, 1 1 5 - 1 2 9 .

L a ugh l in , P . R . , & E l l i s , A . L . (1 986 ) . De m ons t r a b i l i ty a nd s oc ia l c om -

b ina t ion p ro c e s s e s on m a the m a t ic a l in te l l e c t ive t a s ks . Journal o f Ex-

perimental Social Psychology, 22, 1 7 7 - 1 8 9 .

L e v ine , J . M. , & Ru s s o , E . M. (198 7) . Ma jo r i ty a nd m inor i ty in f lue nc e .

In C . He ndr ic k (E d . ) , Review of personali ty and social psychology:

Group processes (Vo l . 8 , pp . 13 -54) . Ne wbury P a rk , CA: S a ge .

Ma a s s , A . , C la rk , R . D . , I I1 , & H a be rkom , G . (1 982 ) . T he e f f e c t s o f

d i f f e r e n t ia l a s c r ibe d c a te gory m e m be rs h ip a nd norm s on m inor i ty

inf luence . European Journal o f Socia l Psychology, 12, 8 9 - 1 0 4 .

Ma a s s , A . , W e st , S . G . , & C ia ld in i , R . B . (1 987 ) . Min or i ty in f lue nc e

a nd c onve r s ion . In C . He ndr ic k (E d . ) , Review o f personali ty and

social psychology (Vo l. 8 , pp . 55 - 79 ) . Be ve r ly H i l l s , CA: S a ge .

Ma rque s , J . M. , & Y z e rby t , V . Y . (198 8) . T he b la c k s h e e p e f f ec t : J udg-



964 A L VA R O A N D C R A N O

m e nta l e x t r e m i ty towa rds in -g roup m e m be rs in inter - a nd in t r a -g roup

situa tions . European Journal o f Soc ial Psychology, 18, 2 8 7 - 2 9 2 .

Ma rque s , J .M. , Yz e rby t , V .Y . , & L e ye ns , J . -P . (1988) . T he " b la c k

s h e e p e f f e c t " : E x t r e m i t y o f j u d g m e n t s t o w a r d s i n - g r o u p m e m b e r s

a s a func t ion o f g roup ide n t i f i c a t ion . European Journal o f Social

Psychology, 18, 1 - 16.

Ma r t in , R . (198 8) . In -g roup a nd ou t -g roup m inor i t i e s : D i f f e re n tia l im -

pa c t upon pub l ic a nd p r iva te r e s pons e . European Journal o f SocialPsychology, 18, 3 9 - 5 2 .

Ma r t in , R . (1992) . T he e f f e c t s o f in -g roup a nd ou t -g roup m e m be rs h ip

on m inor i ty in f lue nc e whe n g roup m e m be rs h ip i s de te rm ine d by a

tr ivia l ca tegoriza t ion. Social Behavior and Personal ity , 20, 1 3 1 - 1 4 2 .

Mc G ui re , W . J . , & Mc G ui re , C . V . (198 8) . Con te n t a nd p roc e s s in the

e xpe r ie nc e o f s el f. I n L . B e rkowi tz (E d . ) , Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vo l. 21 , pp . 97 - 14 3) . S a n D ie go , CA: Ac a de m ic

Press .

Mos c ov ic i , S . (1976) . Social influence and social change. Ne w York :

Academic Press .

Mos c ov ic i , S . (19 80) . T owa rd a the o ry o f c onve r s ion be ha v io r. In L .

Be rkowi tz (E d . ) , Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol.

13 , pp . 20 9-2 39 ) . Ne w York : Ac a de m ic P re ss .

Mos c ov ic i , S . (1985) . Innova t ion a nd m inor i ty in f lue nc e . In G . L ind-

z e y & E . Arons on (E ds . ) , The handbook o f social psychology (Vol.

2 , 3 rd e d . , pp . 34 7- 41 2) . Ne w York : Ra ndom Hous e.

Mos c ov ic i , S . , & Mugny , G . (198 3) . Mino r i ty in f luenc e . In P . B . P a u lus

( E d . ) , Basic group processes (pp . 41 -6 4) . Ne w York : S pr inger -

Verlag.

Muc c h i -F a ina , A . , Ma a s s , A . , & V olpa to , C . (199 0) . S oc ia l in f lue nc e:

T he ro le o f o r ig inal i ty . European Journal of Social Psychology, 21,

1 8 3 - 1 9 8 .

M u g n y , G . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . The pow er o f minorit ies. Ne w York : Ac a de m ic P re s s .

Mugny , G . (1 985 ) . D i r e c t a nd ind i r e c t in f lue nc e in the As c h pa ra d igm :

E f f e ct s o f " v a l i d " o r " d e n i e d " i n f o rm a t i o n . European Journal of

Social Psychology, 15, 4 5 7 - 4 6 1 .

Mugny , G . , & P e re z, J . A . (199 1) . The social psychology of minority

influence. Ca m br idge , E ng la nd : Ca m br idge Un ive r s i ty P re s s .

Ne m e th , C . J . ( 1986) . D i f f e re n t ial c on t r ibu t ions o f m a jo r i ty a nd m inor -

i ty inf luence . Psychological Review, 93, 1 - 1 0 .

Ne m e th , C . J ., & Kwa n , J . ( 19 87) . Mino r i ty in f lue nc e , d ive rge n t th ink -

ing , a nd de te c t ion o f c o r r e c t s o lu t ions . Journal o f Appl ied Social

Psychology, 17, 7 8 6 - 7 9 7 .

Ne m e th , C . J ., Ma ys e le s s , O . , S he rm a n , J ., & B rown , Y . (1990) . E xpo-

s u re to d i s s e n t a nd r e c a l l o f in fo rm a t ion . Journal o f Personality and

Social Psychology, 58, 4 2 9 - 4 3 7 .

Olson , J . M. , E ll is , R. J . , & Zan na , M. P. (198 3) . Va lidating objec tiv e

ve r s us s ub je c t ive judgm e n ts : In te re s t in s oc ia l c om p a r i s on a nd c ons i s -

t e nc y in fo rm a t ion . Personality and Socia l Psychology Bulletin, 9,4 2 7 - 4 3 6 .

P e re z , J . A . , & Mugny , G . (19 87) . P a ra dox ic a l e f f e ct s o f c a te gor iz a tion

in m inor i ty in f lue nc e : W he n be ing a n ou t -g roup i s a n a dva n ta ge .

European Journal of Social Psychology, 17 , 157-169 .

P e re z , J . A . , & Mugny , G . (1 990 ) . Mino r i ty in f lue nc e : Ma n i fe s t d i s c r im -

ina t ion a nd l a te n t in f lue nc e . In D . Abra m s & M . Hogg (E ds . ) , Social

identity theory: Constructive and critical advances ( p p . 1 0 1 - 1 2 0 ) .

L ondon : Ha rve s te r W he a ts he a f .

Pe tty , R. E . , & Cac iop po, J . T . (19 86 ) . Com munication a nd persuasion:

Central and peripheral routes to attitude cha nge. New York: Springer-

Verlag.

Qua t t rone , G . A . (1 986 ) . On the pe rc e p t ion o f a g roup ' s va r ia b il i ty . In

S . W orc he l & W . G . Aus t in (E ds . ) , Psychology of intergroup relations

( p p . 2 4 - 4 8 ) . C h i c a g o : N e l s o n -H a l l .

Qua t t rone , G . A . , & J one s , E . E . (1980) . T he pe rc e p t ion o f va r ia b i l i tywi th in in -g roups : Im pl ic a t ions fo r the l a w o f s m a l l num be r s . Journal

of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 38, 1 4 1 - 1 5 2 .

Turner , J . C. (1991) . Social influence. P a c i f i c Grove , CA: Brooks /Co le .

Turner, J .C . , H ogg, M .A . , O akes , P .J . , Re icher , S .D . , & Wethere ll ,

M. S . (1987) . Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization

theory. Ne w York: Ba s i l B la c kwe l l .

Volpa to, C., Maass , A. , Mucc hi-Fa ina , A. , & Vit t i , E . (199 0) . Mi nori ty

in f lue nc e a nd s oc ia l c a te gor iz a tion . European Journal of Social Psy-

chology, 20, 1 1 9 - 1 3 2 .

Wood, W., Lundgren , S ., Oue lle t te , J . A. , Buscem e, S . , & Blacks to ne ,

T . (1994) . P roc e s s e s o f m inor i ty in f lue nc e : In f lue nc e e f f e c t ive ne s s

a nd s ourc e pe rc e p t ions . Psychological Bulletin, 115, 3 2 3 - 3 2 5 .

R e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 1 , 1 9 9 6

R e v i s i o n r e c e i v e d J u l y 2 2 , 1 9 9 6

A c c e p t e d S e p t e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 6 •

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thipnapa-huansuriya
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

W06 Alvaro&Crano1997 Indirect Minority Influence

Documents