Knowledge of the Advocated Position and the Processing of In-Group and Out-Group Persuasive Messages

Abstract

This study investigated the processing consequences of receiving non-membership-relevant persuasive messages from in-group or out-group members. Students were given two-sided messages ostensibly from an in-group or out-group source. The position advocated in the message was announced either before or after message arguments were presented, and position-consistent arguments were either strong or weak. In-group messages were more likely to receive content-focused processing (as indicated by lager processing times and differential persuasion to strong and weak arguments) when position advocacy followed rather than pre ceded message presentation Prior knowledge of the in-group position produced acceptance of the in-group position regardless of message quality, particularly of the counter attitudinal message. Out-group appeals produced almost no attitude change, even with strong arguments. 7hese results provide further information about the processing mediation of the increased persuasive power of in-groups.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen, V. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 133-176). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Asch, S. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 177-190). Pittsburgh: Carnegie Press.

Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726-737.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Parasite and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.

Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna , J. M. Olson , & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chaiken, S. , Liberman, A. , & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic &systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.

Clark, R. D. III. , & Maas, A. (1988a). Social categorization in minority influence: The case of homosexuality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 347-364.

Clark, R D. III. , & Maas, A. (1988b). Source credibility in minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 381-394.

Deutsch, N. , & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.

10.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.

11.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relation New York: Wiley.

12.

Hogg, M. A. , & Turner, J. C. (1987). Social identity and conformity: A theory of referent informational influence. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 139-182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Insko, C. A. , Smith, R. H. , Alicke, M. D. , Wade, J. , & Taylor, S. (1985). Conformity and group size: The concern with being right and the concern with being liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 41-50.

14.

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.

15.

Mackie, D. M. (1986). Social identification effects in group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 720-728.

16.

Mackie, D. M. , & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). On-line and memory-based processing of attitude change. Journal of Pesona5t and Social Psychology, 59, 5-16.

17.

Mackie, D. M. , Worth, L. T. , & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Pesonality and Social Psychology, 58, 812-822.

18.

Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, j. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

19.

Puckett, J. , Petty, R. E. , Cacioppo, j. T. , & Fisher, D. (1983). The relative impact of age and attractiveness stereotypes on persuasion. Journal of Gerontology, 38, 340-343.

20.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup behavior (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. London: Basil Blackwell.

22.

Turner, J. C. , Wetherell, M. S. , & Hogg, N. A. (in press). Referent informational influence and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology.