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.

The influence of personality traits in predicting information processing and message persuasiveness

Gray‘s (2000) revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST) was used to investigate personality effects on information processing biases to gain-framed and loss-framed anti-speeding messages and the persuasiveness of these messages. The r-RST postulates that behaviour is regulated by two major motivational systems: reward system or punishment system. It was hypothesised that both message processing and persuasiveness would be dependent upon an individual‘s sensitivity to reward or punishment. Student drivers (N = 133) were randomly assigned to view one of four anti-speeding messages or no message (control group). Individual processing differences were then measured using a lexical decision task, prior to participants completing a personality and persuasion questionnaire. Results indicated that participants who were more sensitive to reward showed a marginally significant (p = .050) tendency to report higher intentions to comply with the social gain-framed message and demonstrate a cognitive processing bias towards this message, than those with lower reward sensitivity.

Individual differences in drivers’ cognitive processing of road safety messages

Using Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (r-RST), we examined the influence of personality on processing of words presented in gain-framed and loss-framed anti-speeding messages and how the processing biases associated with personality influenced message acceptance. The r-RST predicts that the nervous system regulates personality and that behaviour is dependent upon the activation of the Behavioural Activation System (BAS), activated by reward cues and the Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS), activated by punishment cues. According to r-RST, individuals differ in the sensitivities of their BAS and FFFS (i.e., weak to strong), which in turn leads to stable patterns of behaviour in the presence of rewards and punishments, respectively. It was hypothesised that individual differences in personality (i.e., strength of the BAS and the FFFS) would influence the degree of both message processing (as measured by reaction time to previously viewed message words) and message acceptance (measured three ways by perceived message effectiveness, behavioural intentions, and attitudes). Specifically, it was anticipated that, individuals with a stronger BAS would process the words presented in the gain-frame messages faster than those with a weaker BAS and individuals with a stronger FFFS would process the words presented in the loss-frame messages faster than those with a weaker FFFS. Further, it was expected that greater processing (faster reaction times) would be associated with greater acceptance for that message. Driver licence holding students (N = 108) were recruited to view one of four anti-speeding messages (i.e., social gain-frame, social loss-frame, physical gain-frame, and physical loss-frame). A computerised lexical decision task assessed participants’ subsequent reaction times to message words, as an indicator of the extent of processing of the previously viewed message. Self-report measures assessed personality and the three message acceptance measures. As predicted, the degree of initial processing of the content of the social gain-framed message mediated the relationship between the reward sensitive trait and message effectiveness. Initial processing of the physical loss-framed message partially mediated the relationship between the punishment sensitive trait and both message effectiveness and behavioural intention ratings. These results show that reward sensitivity and punishment sensitivity traits influence cognitive processing of gain-framed and loss-framed message content, respectively, and subsequently, message effectiveness and behavioural intention ratings. Specifically, a range of road safety messages (i.e., gain-frame and loss-frame messages) could be designed which align with the processing biases associated with personality and which would target those individuals who are sensitive to rewards and those who are sensitive to punishments.

Processing biases towards gain-framed messages may lead reward sensitive individuals to adopt safer driving behaviours

Using Gray and McNaughton’s revised RST, this study investigated the extent to which the Behavioural Approach System (BAS) and the Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS) influence the processing of gain-framed and loss-framed road safety messages and subsequent message acceptance. It was predicted that stronger BAS sensitivity and FFFS sensitivity would be associated with greater processing and acceptance of the gain-framed messages and loss-framed messages, respectively. Young drivers (N = 80, aged 17–25 years) viewed one of four road safety messages and completed a lexical decision task to assess message processing. Both self-report (e.g., Corr-Cooper RST-PQ) and behavioural measures (i.e., CARROT and Q-Task) were used to assess BAS and FFFS traits. Message acceptance was measured via self-report ratings of message effectiveness, behavioural intentions, attitudes and subsequent driving behaviour. The results are discussed in the context of the effect that differences in reward and punishment sensitivities may have on message processing and message acceptance.

Individual differences in the processing of punishment and reward cues : an application to road safety messages

This thesis examined the extent to which individual differences, as conceptualised by the revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory, influenced young drivers' information processing and subsequent acceptance of anti-speeding messages. Using a multi-method approach, the findings highlighted the utility of combining objective measures (a cognitive response time task and electroencephalography) with self-report measures to assess message processing and message acceptance, respectively. This body of research indicated that responses to anti-speeding messages may differ depending on an individual's personality disposition. Overall, the research provided further insight into the development of message strategies to target high risk drivers.

Zone based systems design framework for the realisation of efficient block cipher based message authentication code algorithms

A zone based systems design framework is described and utilised in the implementation of a message authentication code (MAC) algorithm based on symmetric key block ciphers. The resulting block cipher based MAC algorithm may be used to provide assurance of the authenticity and, hence, the integrity of binary data. Using software simulation to benchmark against the de facto cipher block chaining MAC (CBC-MAC) variant used in the TinySec security protocol for wireless sensor networks and the NIST cipher block chaining MAC standard, CMAC; we show that our zone based systems design framework can lead to block cipher based MAC constructs that point to improvements in message processing efficiency, processing throughput and processing latency.

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. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Morningness-eveningness orientation, optimal time-of-day and attitude change: Evidence for the systematic processing of a persuasive communication

This study investigates the effects of morningness-eveningness orientation and time-of-day on persuasion. In an attitude change paradigm, 120 female participants read a persuasive message that consisted of six counter-attitudinal arguments (anti-voluntary euthanasia) either in the morning (8:30 a.m.) or in the evening (7:00 p.m.). Attitude change was assessed by measuring attitudes towards the target issue before and after exposure to the message. Message processing was assessed by thought-listing and message recall tasks. Self-reported mood and arousal were monitored throughout. Participants were classified into M- and E-types according to their scores on the Horne and Ostberg (1976) MEQ questionnaire. When tested at their respective optimal time-of-day (i.e., morning for M-types/evening for E-types), M- and E-types reported higher energetic arousal, greater agreement with the message, greater message-congruent thinking, and a propensity for superior message recall compared to M- and E-types tested at their nonoptimal time-of-day (i.e., evening for M-types/morning for E-types). The attitude change in those tested at their optimal time-of-day was mediated by the level of message-congruent thinking. Results are interpreted in terms of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

Behavioural Inhibition System response to conflicting advertisement cues: Road safety messages vs. motor vehicle promotional advertisements

This study assessed the revised Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS), as conceptualised by Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised RST, by exposing participants to a loss-framed road safety message (emphasising the negative consequences of speeding behaviour) and a high performance motor vehicle promotional advertisement. Licensed young drivers (N = 40, aged 17–25 years) were randomly allocated to view either the message or both the message and advertisement. Participants then completed a computerised lexical decision task prior to completing three personality measures: Corr-Cooper RST-PQ, CARROT and Q-Task. It was predicted that those with a stronger BIS would demonstrate greater processing of these mixed message cues compared to weaker BIS individuals, and that this BIS effect would only be observed in the mixed cues condition (due to simultaneous activation of the incentive and punishment systems). Preliminary findings will be discussed in the context of the influence of personality traits on health message processing.

The use of neurocognitive methods in assessing health communication messages: A systematic review

We review 20 studies that examined persuasive processing and outcomes of health messages using neurocognitive measures. The results suggest that cognitive processes and neural activity in regions thought to reflect self-related processing may be more prominent in the persuasive process of self-relevant messages. Furthermore, activity in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), the superior temporal gyrus, and the middle frontal gyrus were identified as predictors of message effectiveness, with the MPFC accounting for additional variance in behaviour change beyond that accounted for by self-report measures. Incorporating neurocognitive measures may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the processing and outcomes of health messages.