The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence

Clark, Russell D.; Maass, Anne

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420180502

Cited by 82 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results nicely confirm other research showing that the validity of a persuasive message is largely determined by the membership of its source and that people are more influenced by ingroup than by outgroup sources (Abrams & Hogg, 1990;Clark & Maass, 1988;David & Turner, 1996;Hogg & Turner, 1987;Mackie, 1986). Interestingly, if the results of Study 1 might be interpreted in terms of a surveillance effect (i.e., the tendency to tailor one's communication in order to avoid sanctions from the audience; Reicher & Levine, 1994a,b;Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989), the results of Study 2 allow us to question such an interpretation as they clearly indicate that perceivers are sometimes ready to disagree with their prospective audience.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Subtyping and social consensus: the role of the audience in the maintenance of stereotypic beliefs

Carnaghi

Yzerbyt

2007

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies investigated the effect of stereotypes held by a prospective audience on participants' reactions to a stereotype-disconfirming member. In Study 1, participants formed an impression of a positive disconfirming gay in order to communicate it to an audience known to hold a negative versus positive stereotype about gays. As predicted, participants subtyped the deviant more in the former than in the latter case. Moreover, participants' stereotype at the end of the study mirrored the audience's assumed stereotypes about gays. In Study 2, participants learned about a stereotype allegedly held by an ingroup or an outgroup audience about Belgians and then received information about a Belgian who disconfirmed the stereotype. As predicted, the deviant was seen as less typical when he violated the stereotype held by an ingroup than by an outgroup audience. Also, participants' stereotype about Belgians was more similar to the one held by the ingroup audience. A mediational analysis confirmed that participants subtyped the disconfirming member in order to embrace the stereotype advocated by the ingroup audience. Results are discussed in light of recent models of stereotype change.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Subtyping and social consensus: the role of the audience in the maintenance of stereotypic beliefs

Carnaghi

Yzerbyt

2007

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although past research findings consistently support the notion that minorities are at a distinct advantage when they argue in favor of the Zeitgeist (Clark & Maass, 1988a, 1988bPaicheler, 1976Paicheler, , 1977, our results are inconsistent with those findings. In our study, within the consensus seeking condition, minorities who argued against the Zeitgeist were more influential than those who argued in favor of capital punishment.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups Discussing the Death Penalty: A Shared Representations Interpretation

Smith

Dykema‐Engblade²,

Walker

et al. 2000

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research has shown that minorities arguing in favor of the majority opinion within a given population (i.e. the ‘Zeitgeist’) are more powerful sources of social influence than minorities arguing against the normative population opinion (i.e. Clark & Maass, 1988a and b; Paicheler,1977). We studied the Zeitgeist effect within the context of freely interacting groups discussing the death penalty. In direct contrast to past research, minorities arguing against the death penalty Zeitgeist were more powerful sources of social influence than those arguing in favor of it. Analyses of conversation content and thought-listing data suggest that minorities arguing against the death penalty may have been more influential because they were appealing to a superordinate shared belief system within their respective groups.

show abstract

“…Groups were allowed 20-25 minutes to discuss their attitudes toward abortion. After the group discussion, subjects were asked to express their attitudes toward abortion in private (see Maass and Clark, 1983;Clark and Maass, 1988a).…”

Section: Experimental Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of majority size on minority influence

Clark

Maass

1990

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated the role of majority size (social pressure) in minority influence. Opposite predictions were derived from an attributional account and two social impact models. In Experiment 1 there was a tendency for minority influence to decrease with increasing majority size when the minority argued against gay rights. The results were stronger and clearer in Experiment 2. For pro-abortion minorities, the minority's impact clearly declined as the size of the opposing majority increased. As predicted by the social impact models, this decline occurred during the initial increase of the majority size. The limitations of the mathematical models are discussed

show abstract

The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence

Cited by 82 publications

References 17 publications

Subtyping and social consensus: the role of the audience in the maintenance of stereotypic beliefs

Subtyping and social consensus: the role of the audience in the maintenance of stereotypic beliefs

Asymmetrical Social Influence in Freely Interacting Groups Discussing the Death Penalty: A Shared Representations Interpretation

The effects of majority size on minority influence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About