Majority versus minority influence, message processing and attitude change:the Source-Context-Elaboration Model

This chapter examines the contexts in which people will process more deeply, and therefore be more influenced by, a position that is supported by either a numerical majority or minority. The chapter reviews the major theories of majority and minority influence with reference to which source condition is associated with most message processing (and where relevant, the contexts under which this occurs) and experimental research examining these predictions. The chapter then presents a new theoretical model (the source-context-elaboration model, SCEM) that aims to integrate the disparate research findings. The model specifies the processes underlying majority and minority influence, the contexts under which these processes occur and the consequences for attitudes changed by majority and minority influence. The chapter then describes a series of experiments that address each of the aspects of the theoretical model. Finally, a range of research-related issues are discussed and future issues for the research area as a whole are considered.

Majority versus minority influence:the role of message processing in determining resistance to counter-persuasion

Two experiments examined the extent to which attitudes changed following majority and minority influence are resistant to counter-persuasion. In both experiments participants' attitudes were measured after being exposed to two messages, delayed in time, which argued opposite positions (initial message and counter-message). In the first experiment, attitudes following minority endorsement of the initial message were more resistant to a second counter-message only when the initial message contained strong versus weak arguments. Attitudes changed following majority influence did not resist the second counter-message and returned to their pre-test level. Experiment 2 varied whether memory was warned (i.e., message recipients expected to recall the message) or not, to manipulate message processing. When memory was warned, which should increase message processing, attitudes changed following both majority and minority influence resisted the second counter-message. The results support the view that minority influence instigates systematic processing of its arguments, leading to attitudes that resist counter-persuasion. Attitudes formed following majority influence yield to counter-persuasion unless there is a secondary task that encourages message processing.

Effects of caffeine on persuasion and attitude change:the role of secondary tasks in manipulating systematic message processing

Two experiments are reported that examine the effects of caffeine consumption on attitude change by using different secondary tasks to manipulate message processing. The first experiment employed an orientating task whilst the second experiment employed a distracter task. In both experiments participants consumed an orange-juice drink that either contained caffeine (3.5?mg/kg body weight) or did not contain caffeine (placebo) prior to reading a counter-attitudinal communication. The results across both experiments were similar. When message processing was reduced or under high distraction, there was no attitude change irrespective of caffeine consumption. However, when message processing was enhanced or under low distraction, there was greater attitude change in the caffeine vs. placebo conditions. Furthermore, attitudes formed after caffeine consumption resisted counter-persuasion (Experiment 1) and led to indirect attitude change (Experiment 2). The extent that participants engaged in message-congruent thinking mediated the amount of attitude change. These results provide evidence that moderate amounts of caffeine increase systematic processing of the arguments in the message resulting in greater agreement.

Systematic and heuristic processing of majority and minority-endorsed messages:the effects of varying outcome relevance and levels of orientation on attitude and message processing

Two experiments investigated the conditions under which majority and minority sources instigate systematic processing of their messages. Both experiments crossed source status (majority vs. minority) with message quality (strong vs. weak arguments). In each experiment, message elaboration was manipulated by varying either motivational (outcome relevance, Experiment 1) or cognitive (orientating tasks, Experiment 2) factors. The results showed that when either motivational or cognitive factors encouraged low message elaboration, there was heuristic acceptance of the majority position without detailed message processing. When the level of message elaboration was intermediate, there was message processing only for the minority source. Finally, when message elaboration was high, there was message processing for both source conditions. These results show that majority and minority influence is sensitive to motivational and cognitive factors that constrain or enhance message elaboration and that both sources can lead to systematic processing under specific circumstances. © 2007 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Majority versus minority influence:when, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing

Two experiments investigated the extent of message processing of a persuasive communication proposed by either a numerical majority or minority. Both experiments crossed source status (majority versus minority) with message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to determine which source condition is associated with systematic processing. The first experiment showed a reliable difference between strong and weak messages, indicating systematic processing had occurred, for a minority irrespective of message direction (pro- versus counter-attitudinal), but not for a majority. The second experiment showed that message outcome moderates when a majority or a minority leads to systematic processing. When the message argued for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the majority source; but when the message did not argue for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the minority source. Thus one key moderator of whether a majority or minority source leads to message processing is whether the topic induces defensive processing motivated by self-interest.

Morningness-eveningness orientation and attitude change:evidence for greater systematic processing and attitude change at optimal time-of-day

This study examines the relationship between morningness-eveningness orientation and time-of day on attitude change, and tests the hypothesis that people will be more persuaded when tested at their optimal time-of-day (i.e., morning for M-types and evening for E-types) than non-optimal time-of-day (i.e., evening for M-Types and morning for E-types). Two hundred and twenty participants read a message that contained either strong vs. weak quality counter-attitudinal arguments (anti-voluntary euthanasia) in the morning (9.00. a.m.) or in the evening (7.00. p.m.). When tested at their respective optimal time-of-day (for both M- and E-types) there was a reliable difference in attitude change between the strong vs. weak messages (indicating message processing had occurred) while there was no difference between strong vs. weak messages when tested at their non-optimal time-of-day. In addition, the amount of message-congruent thinking mediated the attitude change. The results show that M- and E-types pay greater attention to and elaborate on a persuasive message at their optimal time-of-day, and this leads to increased attitude change, compared to those tested at their non-optimal time-of-day. © 2012.

Message passing for task redistribution on sparse graphs

The problem of resource allocation in sparse graphs with real variables is studied using methods of statistical physics. An efficient distributed algorithm is devised on the basis of insight gained from the analysis and is examined using numerical simulations, showing excellent performance and full agreement with the theoretical results.

Caffeine, cognition, and persuasion:evidence for caffeine increasing the systematic processing of persuasive messages

Caffeine is known to increase arousal, attention, and information processing–all factors implicated in facilitating persuasion. In a standard attitude-change paradigm, participants consumed an orange-juice drink that either contained caffeine (3.5 mg/kg body weight) or did not (placebo) prior to reading a counterattitudinal communication (anti-voluntary euthanasia). Participants then completed a thought-listing task and a number of attitude scales. The first experiment showed that those who consumed caffeine showed greater agreement with the communication (direct attitude: voluntary euthanasia) and on an issue related to, but not contained in, the communication (indirect attitude: abortion). The order in which direct and indirect attitudes were measured did not affect the results. A second experiment manipulated the quality of the arguments in the message (strong vs. weak) to determine whether systematic processing had occurred. There was evidence that systematic processing occurred in both drink conditions, but was greater for those who had consumed caffeine. In both experiments, the amount of message-congruent thinking mediated persuasion. These results show that caffeine can increase the extent to which people systematically process and arc influenced by a persuasive communication.

Effect of fatigue on consumers' advertising processing

Huge advertising budgets are invested by firms to reach and convince potential consumers to buy their products. To optimize these investments, it is fundamental not only to ensure that appropriate consumers will be reached, but also that they will be in appropriate reception conditions. Marketing research has focused on the way consumers react to advertising, as well as on some individual and contextual factors that could mediate or moderate the ad impact on consumers (e.g. motivation and ability to process information or attitudes toward advertising). Nevertheless, a factor that potentially influences consumers’ advertising reactions has not yet been studied in marketing research: fatigue. Fatigue can yet impact key variables of advertising processing, such as cognitive resources availability (Lieury 2004). Fatigue is felt when the body warns to stop an activity (or inactivity) to have some rest, allowing the individual to compensate for fatigue effects. Dittner et al. (2004) defines it as “the state of weariness following a period of exertion, mental or physical, characterized by a decreased capacity for work and reduced efficiency to respond to stimuli.’’ It signals that resources will lack if we continue with the ongoing activity. According to Schmidtke (1969), fatigue leads to troubles in information reception, in perception, in coordination, in attention getting, in concentration and in thinking. In addition, for Markle (1984) fatigue generates a decrease in memory, and in communication ability, whereas it increases time reaction, and number of errors. Thus, fatigue may have large effects on advertising processing. We suggest that fatigue determines the level of available resources. Some research about consumer responses to advertising claim that complexity is a fundamental element to take into consideration. Complexity determines the cognitive efforts the consumer must provide to understand the message (Putrevu et al. 2004). Thus, we suggest that complexity determines the level of required resources. To study this complex question about need and provision of cognitive resources, we draw upon Resource Matching Theory. Anand and Sternthal (1989, 1990) are the first to state the Resource Matching principle, saying that an ad is most persuasive when the resources required to process it match the resources the viewer is willing and able to provide. They show that when the required resources exceed those available, the message is not entirely processed by the consumer. And when there are too many available resources comparing to those required, the viewer elaborates critical or unrelated thoughts. According to the Resource Matching theory, the level of resource demanded by an ad can be high or low, and is mostly determined by the ad’s layout (Peracchio and Myers-Levy, 1997). We manipulate the level of required resources using three levels of ad complexity (low – high – extremely high). On the other side, the resource availability of an ad viewer is determined by lots of contextual and individual variables. We manipulate the level of available resources using two levels of fatigue (low – high). Tired viewers want to limit the processing effort to minimal resource requirements by making heuristics, forming overall impression at first glance. It will be easier for them to decode the message when ads are very simple. On the contrary, the most effective ads for viewers who are not tired are complex enough to draw their attention and fully use their resources. They will use more analytical strategies, looking at the details of the ad. However, if ads are too complex, they will be too difficult to understand. The viewer will be discouraged to process information and will overlook the ad. The objective of our research is to study fatigue as a moderating variable of advertising information processing. We run two experimental studies to assess the effect of fatigue on visual strategies, comprehension, persuasion and memorization. In study 1, thirty-five undergraduate students enrolled in a marketing research course participated in the experiment. The experimental design is 2 (tiredness level: between subjects) x 3 (ad complexity level: within subjects). Participants were randomly assigned a schedule time (morning: 8-10 am or evening: 10-12 pm) to perform the experiment. We chose to test subjects at various moments of the day to obtain maximum variance in their fatigue level. We use Morningness / Eveningness tendency of participants (Horne & Ostberg, 1976) as a control variable. We assess fatigue level using subjective measures - questionnaire with fatigue scales - and objective measures - reaction time and number of errors. Regarding complexity levels, we have designed our own ads in order to keep aspects other than complexity equal. We ran a pretest using the Resource Demands scale (Keller and Bloch 1997) and by rating them on complexity like Morrison and Dainoff (1972) to check for our complexity manipulation. We found three significantly different levels. After having completed the fatigue scales, participants are asked to view the ads on a screen, while their eye movements are recorded by the eye-tracker. Eye-tracking allows us to find out patterns of visual attention (Pieters and Warlop 1999). We are then able to infer specific respondents’ visual strategies according to their level of fatigue. Comprehension is assessed with a comprehension test. We collect measures of attitude change for persuasion and measures of recall and recognition at various points of time for memorization. Once the effect of fatigue will be determined across the student population, it is interesting to account for individual differences in fatigue severity and perception. Therefore, we run study 2, which is similar to the previous one except for the design: time of day is now within-subjects and complexity becomes between-subjects

Message-passing for inference and optimization of real variables on sparse graphs

The inference and optimization in sparse graphs with real variables is studied using methods of statistical mechanics. Efficient distributed algorithms for the resource allocation problem are devised. Numerical simulations show excellent performance and full agreement with the theoretical results. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.