DIFFERENTIAL PROCESSING AND ATTITUDE-CHANGE FOLLOWING MAJORITY VERSUSMINORITY ARGUMENTS

This experiment tested the general hypothesis that majority influence induces convergent processing, which stimulates attitude change on foc al issues, whereas minority influence sometimes produces divergent pro cessing, which might stimulate change on related attitudes. Results of a numerical support (majority vs. minority) by outcome involvement (h igh vs. low) experiment with attitude change and cognitive activity as dependent variables yielded partial support for these predictions. Ma jority arguments caused more attitude change on the focal issue than m inority arguments, especially under high outcome involvement; no effec ts, however, were found for attitudes towards related issues. Consiste nt with expectations also was the result that, especially under high o utcome involvement, cognitive activity predicted attitude change on th e focal issue in the case of majority support, but generalization to r elated issues in the case of minority support for persuasive arguments . Results are interpreted as consistent with the general conclusion (a ) that majority support is more effective than minority support in eli citing attitude change on local issues, (b) that both majority and min ority support elicit cognitive activity, which predicts attitude chang e on focal issues in the case of majority support, but generalization in the case of minority support and (c) that these processes are espec ially strong when there is motivation to engage in systematic processi ng of persuasive arguments.