Abstract
A good deal of theoretical and empirical attention has been devoted to the cognitive consequences of disagreement from majority and minority sources. However, little effort has been made to determine how anticipated interaction with majorities and minorities of various sizes affects the cognitions of prospective group members. In this study, subjects were led to believe that they would soon discuss a controversial issue with five other people. In four experimental conditions, subjects were further informed that they belonged to either a majority or a minority faction and that the minority was composed of either one person or two persons. Prior to the discussion, subjects had an opportunity to read computer-stored arguments supporting and opposing their position. Results indicated that, within both majority and minority factions, the more people in the opposing faction (and the fewer people in the supporting faction), the more biased subjects were in reading information that supported (rather than opposed) the position they expected to defend. Control subjects, who anticipated a discussion but were given no information about the opinions of other group members, responded like experimental subjects who expected to be members of a four-person majority opposing a two-person minority. These findings, which are not consistent with prior models of majority and minority influence (e.g., Moscovici, 1985), suggest that, at least under certain circumstances, different forms of disagreement (e.g., anticipated interaction with disagreeing others, mere awareness that others disagree, and actual interaction with disagreeing others) may have different cognitive consequences.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call