UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Reconstrual of the stimulus in majority and minority influence Scratchley, Linda Sharon 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A8 S36.pdf [ 3.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098325.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098325-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098325-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098325-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098325-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098325-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098325-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098325-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098325.ris

Full Text

RECONSTRUAL OF THE STIMULUS IN MAJORITY AND MINORITY INFLUENCE By LINDA SHARON SCRATCHLEY B.R.E., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 199 0 Linda Sharon S c r a t c h l e y , 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date Qdrd&LC II ; iWO DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t T h i s r e s e a r c h attempted t o demonstrate t h a t f a c t i o n s i z e a f f e c t s what people are l o o k i n g f o r when they a t t e n d t o c o n f o r m i t y s t i m u l i . I t was expected t h a t s u b j e c t s exposed t o a m a j o r i t y look f o r v a l i d i n f o r m a t i o n a l reasons t o agree w i t h the advocated norm, s u b j e c t s exposed t o one i n f l u e n c e source attempt t o v a l i d a t e the oth e r ' s judgment, and s u b j e c t s exposed t o a m i n o r i t y attempt both t o v a l i d a t e and understand the reason f o r the m i n o r i t y ' s judgment. R e c o n s t r u a l of the stim u l u s was the proposed mechanism by which m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s c o u l d f i n d reasons t o agree w i t h advocated norm and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s c o u l d come t o understand the reason f o r the advocated norm. Thus, s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l was expected t o mediate c o n f o r m i t y and f a c i l i t a t e p r i v a t e acceptance. F a c t i o n s i z e , norm extremity, and a t t e n t i o n t o the st i m u l u s were manipulated; conformity, r e c o n s t r u a l o f the s t i m u l u s , and subsequent p r i v a t e acceptance were measured. The s t i m u l i c o n s i s t e d of t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t s u b j e c t s r a t e d f o r p o s i t i v i t y d u r i n g the conformity t a s k . I t was found t h a t c o n f o r m i t y was g r e a t e r w i t h a l a r g e f a c t i o n , h i g h a t t e n t i o n , and h i g h norm extremity. A main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n had not been found i n past r e s e a r c h t h a t used p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i . I t i s argued t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n f i n d i n g s r e f l e c t s some fundamental d i f f e r e n c e between f a c t u a l judgments (e.g., p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i ) and v a l u e i i i judgments (e.g., t r a i t r a t i n g s ) . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t i s argued t h a t w i t h f a c t u a l judgments t h e r e i s an o b j e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t answer, whereas with value judgments " c o r r e c t n e s s " i s determined by s o c i a l comparison. The i m p l i c a t i o n s of the presence or absence of an o b j e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t response i s d i s c u s s e d w i t h r e g a r d t o the balance between normative and i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e mechanisms. In p a r a l l e l t o the e f f e c t on c o n f o r m i t y i t was a l s o found t h a t h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n i n c r e a s e d r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance. However, the F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n , which was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r p r i v a t e acceptance and m a r g i n a l f o r r e c o n s t r u a l , i n d i c a t e d t h a t these e f f e c t s of a t t e n t i o n were more pronounced f o r s u b j e c t s exposed t o a m i n o r i t y than f o r s u b j e c t s exposed t o a m a j o r i t y . M a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed almost the same amounts of r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance i n response t o both the h i g h - and low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . Since i t i s assumed t h a t s u b j e c t s d i d not have enough time t o r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s b e f o r e they gave t h e i r p u b l i c response on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , t h i s unexpected f i n d i n g r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s about the temporal o r d e r i n g of conformity and r e c o n s t r u a l . That i s does r e c o n s t r u a l precede and mediate conformity or succeed and j u s t i f y conformity, and does the answer va r y a c c o r d i n g t o f a c t i o n s i z e and a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s . The p r e s e n t study c o u l d not d i r e c t l y answer these q u e s t i o n s . Although no c l e a r answer i s p r o v i d e d t o the q u e s t i o n of whether f a c t i o n s i z e a f f e c t s what s u b j e c t s look f o r when they a t t e n d t o conformity s t i m u l i , a number of f r u i t f u l avenues f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h are d i s c u s s e d . V Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of T a b l e s v i i L i s t of F i g u r e s v i i i Acknowledgement i x I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 I n f o r m a t i o n a l and Normative I n f l u e n c e 2 A t t e n t i o n t o the Stimulus 10 R e c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus 18 P r e s e n t Study 19 P r e d i c t i o n s f o r Conformity 21 P r e d i c t i o n s f o r R e c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus 23 P r e d i c t i o n s f o r P r i v a t e Acceptance 24 Method 2 6 S u b j e c t s 26 Procedure 26 Overview 2 6 T r a i t - r a t i n g s c a l e 28 P u b l i c compromise task 3 0 F a c t i o n s i z e 30 A t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s 31 E x t r e m i t y of the norm 3 2 T r i a l d e s c r i p t i o n 33 Conformity Feedback 34 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 35 P r i v a t e Acceptance 36 v i C o n t r o l S u b j e c t s 3 6 C a l c u l a t i o n of the Dependent Measures 37 R e s u l t s 39 Conformity 39 P r i v a t e Acceptance 41 R e c o n s t r u a l of the S t i m u l i 46 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Stimulus R e c o n s t r u a l and P u b l i c and P r i v a t e I n f l u e n c e 50 D i s c u s s i o n 52 Conformity 52 R e c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus and P r i v a t e Acceptance.. 56 R e c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus 57 P r i v a t e Acceptance 58 Two Opposing Viewpoints: M o s c o v i c i vs Campbell 60 F a c t i o n S i z e and A t t e n t i o n t o the Stimulus 66 Summary 69 References 71 Appendix 75 v i i L i s t of Tables T a b l e 1. Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the c r i t i c a l t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s 29 T a b l e 2. Conformity scores as a f u n c t i o n of f a c t i o n s i z e , a t t e n t i o n , and norm extremity 40 T a b l e 3. P r i v a t e acceptance scores as a f u n c t i o n o f f a c t i o n s i z e , a t t e n t i o n , and norm extremi t y 42 T a b l e 4. R e c o n s t r u a l scores as a f u n c t i o n of f a c t i o n s i z e , a t t e n t i o n , and norm extremi t y 47 T a b l e 5. C o r r e l a t i o n between sti m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l and p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n f l u e n c e f o r m i n o r i t y , one-on-one, and m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s 51 V l l l L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e 1. P r i v a t e compromise as a f u n c t i o n of f a c t i o n s i z e and a t t e n t i o n t o the stimulus 44 F i g u r e 2. R e c o n s t r u a l of the stimulus as a f u n c t i o n of f a c t i o n s i z e and a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s 48 i x Acknowledgement I would l i k e t o thank my t h e s i s committee — Dr. J e n n i f e r Campbell, Dr. D a r r i n Lehman, and Dr. D a n i e l Perlman — f o r t h e i r p a t i e n c e , support, and h e l p f u l comments. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n The study of s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e i s one of the o l d e s t t o p i c s i n s o c i a l psychology, d a t i n g back t o S h e r i f ' s (1935) and Asch's (1952) e a r l y work on conformity. Asch's (1952) c l a s s i c s t u d i e s s t i m u l a t e d v a s t amounts of r e s e a r c h i n t o the f a c t o r s t h a t enhance ( A l l e n , 1965) or d i m i n i s h ( A l l e n , 1975) the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a person w i l l succumb t o group p r e s s u r e . R e c e n t l y , the study of s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e has taken a new d i r e c t i o n as r e s e a r c h e r s , no longer content w i t h simply d e l i n e a t i n g the f a c t o r s t h a t i n c r e a s e or decrease the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of an i n f l u e n c e attempt, have sought t o uncover the p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes o p e r a t i v e i n the i n f l u e n c e s i t u a t i o n . T h i s change of focus was emphasized by Ta n f o r d and Penrod (1984) who s t a t e d t h a t much of the c u r r e n t c o n f o r m i t y r e s e a r c h i s " l i m i t e d i n t h a t i t does not e x p l a i n how the i n f l u e n c e process operates p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y . . . . [Future] r e s e a r c h should i n v e s t i g a t e the pro c e s s e s t h a t mediate the e f f e c t s of f a c t i o n s i z e and other v a r i a b l e s on the amount of s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e " (p. 223) . The pr e s e n t study extends a body of r e s e a r c h t h a t has attempted t o understand the p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes t h a t u n d e r l i e i n f l u e n c e i n a conformity context by d e l i n e a t i n g the mechanisms a s s o c i a t e d with i n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative i n f l u e n c e (e.g., Campbell, Tesser, & F a i r e y , 1986; Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989; Insko, Smith, A l i c k e , Wade, & T a y l o r , 1985). 2 I n f o r m a t i o n a l and Normative I n f l u e n c e In e v a l u a t i n g the p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n h e r e n t i n s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e , t h i s r e s e a r c h h i g h l i g h t s the importance of m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r s u s i n g Deutsch and Gerard's (1955) c l a s s i c d i s t i n c t i o n between i n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative i n f l u e n c e . As d e f i n e d by Deutsch and Gerard, i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e i s " i n f l u e n c e t o accept i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from another as evidence about r e a l i t y " (p.629), and normative i n f l u e n c e i s " i n f l u e n c e t o conform t o the p o s i t i v e e x p e c t a t i o n s of another" (p.629). I n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e i s based on the motive t o be acc u r a t e ; b e l i e v i n g t h a t o t h e r s may be c o r r e c t i n t h e i r judgments, one uses t h e i r responses as a source of i n f o r m a t i o n about r e a l i t y . Normative i n f l u e n c e i s based on the motive t o be l i k e d ; even when the ot h e r s are b e l i e v e d t o be wrong, one may conform i n order t o g a i n s o c i a l acceptance or t o and a v o i d s o c i a l r e j e c t i o n . At t h i s j u n c t u r e i t i s important t o note t h a t s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e can occur i n v a r i o u s c o n t e x t s . One way t o d i s t i n g u i s h between the v a r i o u s s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e c o n t e x t s i s i n terms of the degree of s u b t l e t y i n the i n f l u e n c e attempt. Obedience occurs when a person obeys a command g i v e n by an i n f l u e n c e source, u s u a l l y an a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e . Compliance occ u r s when a person concedes t o a request from an i n f l u e n c e source. And conformity occurs when a person agrees w i t h an i n f l u e n c e source i n the absence of any s p e c i f i c r e q u e s t o r 3 command t o do so; the i n f l u e n c e source simply s e t s a b e h a v i o r a l example which the t a r g e t f o l l o w s . Although the n o r m a t i v e / i n f o r m a t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n can and has been a p p l i e d t o o t h e r s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e contexts (e.g., Kaplan, 1989), t h i s paper focuses on the conformity context. Although both i n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative mechanisms are p r o b a b l y o p e r a t i v e , t o some extent, i n every c o n f o r m i t y s e t t i n g , the r e l a t i v e importance of the two mechanisms v a r i e s a c r o s s i n f l u e n c e s i t u a t i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s important f i r s t t o d e l i n e a t e the antecedent c o n d i t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t which mechanism i s l i k e l y t o be predominant. I t i s important t o note t h a t these antecedent c o n d i t i o n s may v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o the type of s t i m u l i being used (Kaplan, 1989) . Two b a s i c types of s t i m u l i have been used i n c o n f o r m i t y r e s e a r c h ; p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i (e.g., Asch, 1952; M o s c o v i c i & Personnaz, 1980) and a t t i t u d i n a l s t i m u l i (e.g., Mugny, 1982; P a i c h e l e r , 1976, 1977). P e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i i n v o l v e f a c t u a l judgments f o r which t h e r e i s "a p o t e n t i a l l y o b s e r v a b l e c o r r e c t answer" (Kaplan, 1989, p. 88). A t t i t u d i n a l s t i m u l i i n v o l v e v a l u e judgments or " e v a l u a t i v e , a e s t h e t i c , o r moral p r e f e r e n c e s f o r which t h e r e i s no demonstrably c o r r e c t answer" (Kaplan, 1989, p. 88). Campbell and her a s s o c i a t e s (e.g., Campbell e t a l . , 1986; Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989) have i d e n t i f i e d s e v e r a l f a c t o r s which appear t o a l t e r the r e l a t i v e importance of i n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative mechanisms i n a c o n f o r m i t y 4 c o n t e x t t h a t i n v o l v e s p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i . Two of the f a c t o r s , which Campbell l a b e l s e x t r e m i t y of the norm and a t t e n t i o n t o the stim u l u s , are best i n t r o d u c e d by p l a c i n g the seminal work of Solomon Asch i n an h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t . Asch (1952) began h i s c l a s s i c c o n f o r m i t y s t u d i e s w i t h the b e l i e f t h a t people would not e x h i b i t c o n f o r m i t y when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h norms t h a t were c l e a r l y i n o p p o s i t i o n w i t h r e a l i t y . In rev i e w i n g p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s of s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e , Asch noted t h a t t h e r e had always been v a l i d i n f o r m a t i o n a l reasons f o r the s u b j e c t s t o conform; the t a s k s had e i t h e r been d i f f i c u l t , ambiguous, or i n s o l u b l e , or the s u b j e c t s had been prevented from d i r e c t l y examining the s t i m u l u s i t s e l f . Asch argued t h a t under e i t h e r of these circumstances, i t was r a t i o n a l and n a t u r a l f o r s u b j e c t s t o look t o the judgments of o t h e r s as an a d d i t i o n a l source of i n f o r m a t i o n . Asch (1952) subsequently gave s u b j e c t s an u n l i m i t e d o p p o r t u n i t y t o examine unambiguous, p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i i n the presence of a group of others who gave o b v i o u s l y i n c o r r e c t responses. To h i s s u r p r i s e , a m a j o r i t y of the s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d a t l e a s t some conformity, even though t h e r e appeared t o be no i n f o r m a t i o n a l l y v a l i d reasons t o do so. Campbell and F a i r e y (1989) d e f i n e d norm e x t r e m i t y as the r e l a t i v e d i s t a n c e of the advocated norm from the o b j e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t response or from the modal response o f persons not exposed t o any s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e . In Asch's experiments, norm extremi t y was hig h because the s t i m u l i 5 were unambiguous and the others gave responses t h a t were o b j e c t i v e l y and s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n c o r r e c t . A t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s r e f e r s t o the amount of time t h a t s u b j e c t s spend a t t e n d i n g t o or p r o c e s s i n g the s t i m u l u s . In Asch's experiments, a t t e n t i o n t o the sti m u l u s was a l s o h i g h because the s u b j e c t s were not l i m i t e d i n terms of the amount of time they were allowed t o devote t o the st i m u l u s — they had ample o p p o r t u n i t y t o observe the sti m u l u s b e f o r e they gave t h e i r judgments. In s i t u a t i o n s where th e r e i s both a h i g h - e x t r e m i t y norm and h i g h a t t e n t i o n t o the st i m u l u s , the norm advocated by the i n f l u e n c e source i s c l e a r l y wrong. Campbell and F a i r e y p o s i t e d t h a t i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which the advocated norm i s c l e a r l y wrong, normative mechanisms are more important than i n f o r m a t i o n a l mechanisms i n accounting f o r the i n f l u e n c e e x h i b i t e d ; t h a t i s , i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the d e s i r e t o be l i k e d must outweigh the d e s i r e t o be r i g h t i n order f o r c o n f o r m i t y t o occur. In s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e r e i s e i t h e r a low-extremity norm or s u b j e c t s are not allowed t o s c r u t i n i z e the st i m u l u s , the norm advocated by the i n f l u e n c e source c o u l d p o s s i b l y be c o r r e c t . In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n a l mechanisms are probably more important than normative mechanisms i n accounting f o r the i n f l u e n c e e x h i b i t e d . Campbell and F a i r e y (1989) p o s i t e d t h a t the r e l a t i v e importance of i n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative mechanisms w i l l 6 moderate the e f f e c t of f a c t i o n s i z e on c o n f o r m i t y . With r e s p e c t t o f a c t i o n s i z e , i t i s important t o d i s t i n g u i s h between m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e , i n which the number of i n f l u e n c e sources exceeds the number of t a r g e t s , and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e , i n which the number of t a r g e t s exceeds the number of i n f l u e n c e sources. In the t y p i c a l m a j o r i t y - i n f l u e n c e paradigm, a lone s u b j e c t i s exposed t o the unanimous disagreement of s e v e r a l peers (e.g., Asch, 1952); the peers are e i t h e r s i m u l a t e d or comprised of c o n f e d e r a t e s . The t y p i c a l m i n o r i t y - i n f l u e n c e paradigm i s the m i r r o r image of the m a j o r i t y - i n f l u e n c e paradigm. That i s , i n the t y p i c a l m i n o r i t y - i n f l u e n c e paradigm, s e v e r a l naive s u b j e c t s are exposed t o the disagreement of one or two c o n f e d e r a t e peers (e.g., M o s c o v i c i , Lage, & Naffrechoux, 1969). Although t h i s type of m i n o r i t y - i n f l u e n c e paradigm buys e c o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y , i t does so a t the c o s t of c o n t r o l . S i n c e the m a j o r i t y c o n s i s t s of naive s u b j e c t s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some of them may p u b l i c l y s h i f t toward the m i n o r i t y p o s i t i o n , thereby a l t e r i n g the n u m e r i c a l balance of m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y f a c t i o n s . An a l t e r n a t i v e m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e paradigm which a f f o r d s h i g h c o n t r o l i n v o l v e s h a v i n g o n l y one r e a l s u b j e c t , and s i m u l a t i n g both the m i n o r i t y and the m a j o r i t y (e.g., Campbell, 1990). F a c t i o n s i z e , i n the remainder of t h i s paper, r e f e r s t o a s i n g l e i n f l u e n c e t a r g e t i n the context of a v a r y i n g number of s i m u l a t e d i n f l u e n c e sources. T h e r e f o r e , f a c t i o n s i z e can 7 range from a s i t u a t i o n i n which on l y one member of a l a r g e group advocates the norm of i n t e r e s t ( m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e ) , t o a s i t u a t i o n with a s i n g l e i n f l u e n c e source (one-on-one i n f l u e n c e ) , t o a s i t u a t i o n i n which a l a r g e unanimous group advocates the norm of i n t e r e s t ( m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e ) . Campbell and F a i r e y (1989) noted t h a t normative p r e s s u r e t o conform should i n c r e a s e s u b s t a n t i a l l y w i t h f a c t i o n s i z e . Indeed, i n a m i n o r i t y s i t u a t i o n , normative p r e s s u r e t o conform may a c t u a l l y be ne g a t i v e , s i n c e conforming w i t h the m i n o r i t y source r e q u i r e s p u b l i c l y d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h the m a j o r i t y . Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , p u b l i c c o n f o r m i t y e f f e c t s are sm a l l i n m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e s t u d i e s (Maass, West, & C i a l d i n i , 1987). In the one-on-one s i t u a t i o n , normative p r e s s u r e should be m i l d , as p u b l i c l y d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h a s i n g l e peer, though somewhat uncomfortable, i s f a i r l y common and c a r r i e s no p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l stigma. However, i n a m a j o r i t y s i t u a t i o n , normative p r e s s u r e should be s u b s t a n t i a l as d e v i a t i n g from a group i n c i t e s d i s l i k e and r e j e c t i o n from m a j o r i t y members (see Lev i n e , 1980, f o r a review), and people are well-aware of t h i s consequence of d e v i a t i n g from a group (Gerard & R o t t e r , 1961). I n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e , on the other hand, sh o u l d not i n c r e a s e s u b s t a n t i a l l y with f a c t i o n s i z e . In a unanimous group, the f i r s t i n f l u e n c e source p r o v i d e s the most i n f o r m a t i o n ; each a d d i t i o n a l source p r o v i d e s e s s e n t i a l l y 8 redundant i n f o r m a t i o n . The i n f o r m a t i o n a l advantage of the group, then, l i e s only i n i t s a b i l i t y t o endow i t s p o s i t i o n w i t h consensus. And even t h i s advantage i s l e s s e n e d by the f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s , b e l i e v i n g t h a t m a j o r i t y members have p r o b a b l y i n f l u e n c e d each other's judgments, o f t e n t r e a t the m a j o r i t y as one i n f o r m a t i o n a l e n t i t y (Wilder, 1977, 1978a, 1978b). T h e r e f o r e , a m a j o r i t y c a r r i e s l i t t l e more i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e than the s i n g l e source i n the one-on-one s i t u a t i o n . In the m i n o r i t y s i t u a t i o n , the responses of the m i n o r i t y are d e v i a n t ; t h a t i s , they not o n l y l a c k the advantage of consensus, but can be c o n s i d e r e d t o have " n e g a t i v e " consensus. However, the l a c k of consensus i n a m i n o r i t y s i t u a t i o n may a l s o have an i n f o r m a t i o n a l advantage. A c c o r d i n g t o the augmenting p r i n c i p l e i n a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y ( K e l l e y , 1971; K e l l e y & M i c h e l a , 1980), the a t t r i b u t i o n of an event t o a f a c i l i t a t i v e cause w i l l be more l i k e l y when an i n h i b i t o r y cause i s pr e s e n t a t the time. In Maass and C l a r k ' s (1984) a p p l i c a t i o n of the augmenting p r i n c i p l e t o m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e , a t t r i b u t i n g the m i n o r i t y ' s d i s p a r a t e p o s i t i o n (the event) t o c e r t a i n t y and c o n v i c t i o n on the p a r t of the m i n o r i t y (the f a c i l i t a t i v e cause) i s enhanced by the f a c t t h a t the m i n o r i t y maintains t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the f a c e o f c o n s i d e r a b l e s o c i a l p r e s s u r e from the m a j o r i t y (an i n h i b i t o r y cause). The a t t r i b u t i o n of c e r t a i n t y and c o n v i c t i o n may i n c r e a s e the i n f o r m a t i o n a l advantage of the 9 m i n o r i t y . Thus, although a m i n o r i t y may c a r r y l e s s i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e than the s i n g l e source i n the one-on-one s i t u a t i o n , the d i f f e r e n c e i s probably s m a l l . In summary, the i n f o r m a t i o n a l advantage of a l a r g e f a c t i o n i s s m a l l r e l a t i v e t o i t s normative advantage. T h e r e f o r e , g i v e n a t y p i c a l conformity context, f a c t i o n - s i z e e f f e c t s should be q u i t e s m a l l when the i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s i s p r i m a r i l y governed by i n f o r m a t i o n a l mechanisms and q u i t e l a r g e when the i n f l u e n c e process i s p r i m a r i l y governed by normative mechanisms. Furthermore, when a l l other f a c t o r s are h e l d c o n s t a n t , l a r g e r f a c t i o n s should i n c r e a s e the r e l a t i v e importance of normative mechanisms because, as noted above, people are aware t h a t the s o c i a l c o s t s of d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h a m a j o r i t y are h i g h e r than the s o c i a l c o s t s of d i s a g r e e i n g w i t h one othe r o r a d e v i a n t m i n o r i t y (Gerard & R o t t e r , 1961). A c c o r d i n g t o Campbell and F a i r e y (1989), the r e s u l t i s t h a t "with s m a l l f a c t i o n s , s u b j e c t s are p r i m a r i l y m o t i v a t e d t o be c o r r e c t ... With l a r g e f a c t i o n s , s u b j e c t s a re motivated t o be c o r r e c t and t o a v o i d v i o l a t i n g group e x p e c t a t i o n s " (p. 459) . In order t o t e s t some of t h e i r i d e a s about the f a c t o r s t h a t a f f e c t and are a f f e c t e d by the r e l a t i v e importance of i n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative i n f l u e n c e , Campbell and F a i r e y (1989) manipulated norm extremi t y (high, medium, or low), a t t e n t i o n t o the stimulus (1 vs 3 b r i e f o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o 10 examine the s t i m u l u s ) , and f a c t i o n s i z e (1 i n f l u e n c e source vs a unanimous group of 3). Campbell and F a i r e y ' s primary p r e d i c t i o n was t h a t norm extremity and a t t e n t i o n would moderate the e f f e c t of f a c t i o n s i z e on co n f o r m i t y . I t was expected t h a t when a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s was low or norm e x t r e m i t y was low, i n f o r m a t i o n a l mechanisms would dominate and the e f f e c t of f a c t i o n s i z e on the amount of c o n f o r m i t y o b t a i n e d would be r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . When a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s was h i g h and norm extremi t y was hig h , i t was expected t h a t normative mechanisms would dominate and the f a c t i o n - s i z e e f f e c t would be s u b s t a n t i a l . T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y the p a t t e r n t h a t they found. A t t e n t i o n t o the Stimulus I t was s t a t e d e a r l i e r t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n a l motive t o be a c c u r a t e and the normative motive t o be accepted w i l l p r o b a b l y both be present, t o some degree, i n any s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e s e t t i n g . In order t o understand the p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n h e r e n t i n s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e , i t i s important not o n l y t o understand the antecedent c o n d i t i o n s t h a t make one or the oth e r of these motives predominant, but a l s o t o understand how people r e a c t when the two motives are i n c o n f l i c t . For example, imagine a s i t u a t i o n i n which a l a r g e unanimous group advocates a norm t h a t i s c l e a r l y i n c o r r e c t . T h i s i s the s i t u a t i o n which faced Asch's (1952) s u b j e c t s . 11 In such a s i t u a t i o n , many s u b j e c t s probably e x p e r i e n c e d some ambivalence over how t o respond g i v e n t h a t the motive t o be r i g h t and the motive t o be l i k e d were c l e a r l y i n o p p o s i t i o n . The i d e a t h a t Asch's s u b j e c t s experienced response ambivalence i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s supported by the f a c t t h a t most of the s u b j e c t s who conformed d i d not do so on every c r i t i c a l t r i a l . Campbell e t a l . (1986) suggested t h a t when a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s i s under the c o n t r o l of the s u b j e c t r a t h e r than the experimenter ( i . e . a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s i s a dependent v a r i a b l e r a t h e r than an independent v a r i a b l e ) , i t can be used as an i n d i c a n t of response ambivalence. S u b j e c t s "examine the stimulus u n t i l they reach a response d e c i s i o n ; h i g h a t t e n t i o n or a long r e a c t i o n - t i m e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the d e c i s i o n was not a quick and easy one" (Campbell e t a l . , 1986, p. 316). S e v e r a l t h e o r i s t s have d i s c u s s e d the r o l e of a t t e n t i o n i n t he s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e process. M o s c o v i c i (1980; M o s c o v i c i & Personnaz, 1980) t h e o r i z e d about a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s i n t he con t e x t of m a j o r i t y versus m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e . He argued t h a t the t a r g e t s of m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e f o c u s t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s . T a r g e t s of m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e focus t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on the o t h e r s ' responses r a t h e r than on the stim u l u s i t s e l f because they are p r i m a r i l y motivated t o be ac c e p t a b l e t o the o t h e r s . In c o n t r a s t , t a r g e t s of m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e focus t h e i r 12 a t t e n t i o n on the stim u l u s i t s e l f i n order t o v a l i d a t e the d e v i a n t responses of the m i n o r i t y . Asch (1952) s p e c u l a t e d about a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s i n m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e s i t u a t i o n s . He surmised t h a t as f a c t i o n s i z e i n c r e a s e d , people would pay more a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s . To s o l v e the dilemma, " s u b j e c t s now look w i t h g r e a t e r c a r e and become more a t t e n t i v e and s c r u p u l o u s i n o b s e r v i n g and comparing" (Asch, 1952, p. 463). Th e r e f o r e , M o s c o v i c i argued t h a t a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s would decrease with f a c t i o n s i z e , whereas Asch expected the o p p o s i t e . Campbell ( i . e . , Campbell e t a l . , 1986; Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989) suggested t h a t f a c t i o n s i z e may not a f f e c t the amount of a t t e n t i o n s u b j e c t s devote t o the s t i m u l u s , but may r a t h e r a l t e r what s u b j e c t s are l o o k i n g f o r when they do atte n d t o the s t i m u l u s . She argued t h a t a l t h o u g h a t t e n t i o n t o the stim u l u s g e n e r a l l y i n d i c a t e s response ambivalence, one can be ambivalent e i t h e r about simply a c c e p t i n g or about simply r e j e c t i n g the o t h e r s ' responses. When c o n f r o n t e d by a smal l f a c t i o n , s u b j e c t s are p r i m a r i l y motivated t o be c o r r e c t ; t h i s m o t i v a t i o n may cause them t o be r e l u c t a n t t o simply accept the o t h e r s ' judgments a t f a c e v a l u e . In t h i s case, s u b j e c t s may s c r u t i n i z e the s t i m u l u s i n order t o see f o r themselves ( M o s c o v i c i ' s , 1980, v a l i d a t i o n p r o c e s s ) . T h i s v a l i d a t i o n process may, i n f a c t , be more a c t i v e when the s u b j e c t i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a 13 m i n o r i t y than when the s u b j e c t i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a s i n g l e i n f l u e n c e source. When con f r o n t e d w i t h a m i n o r i t y , the s u b j e c t l o o k s i n t e n t l y , f i r s t t o v e r i f y h i s or her i n i t i a l o p i n i o n , and second, t o determine what reason the m i n o r i t y had f o r g i v i n g a response t h a t d i f f e r e d from t h a t g i v e n by the m a j o r i t y of the group. When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a s i n g l e i n f l u e n c e source, the s u b j e c t needs t o examine the s t i m u l u s o n l y t o v e r i f y h i s or her i n i t i a l o p i n i o n . When co n f r o n t e d with a l a r g e - f a c t i o n , s u b j e c t s are motivat e d both t o be c o r r e c t and t o a v o i d v i o l a t i n g group e x p e c t a t i o n s ; the l a t t e r m o t i v a t i o n makes them e s p e c i a l l y r e l u c t a n t t o simply r e j e c t the o t h e r s ' judgments. In t h i s case, s u b j e c t s may examine the stim u l u s i n order t o f i n d a c c e p t a b l e ( i n f o r m a t i o n a l ) reasons t o agree (the p r o c e s s i m p l i e d by Asch's, 1952, d i s c u s s i o n ) . Although t h e o r e t i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n s about a t t e n t i o n have been around f o r some time, no one d i r e c t l y examined a t t e n t i o n i n a conformity s e t t i n g u n t i l r e c e n t l y (e.g., T e s s e r , Campbell, & M i c k l e r , 1983; Campbell e t a l . , 1986; Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989; Campbell, 1990). Campbell and her a s s o c i a t e s ( i . e . , Tesser e t a l . , 1983; Campbell e t a l . , 1986) measured a t t e n t i o n t o the stim u l u s i n a c o n f o r m i t y paradigm. T h e i r r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e d (a) t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o the e x p e c t a t i o n s of M o s c o v i c i and Asch, f a c t i o n s i z e d i d not a f f e c t the amount of a t t e n t i o n s u b j e c t s p a i d t o the s t i m u l u s , but (b) t h a t i t may have a f f e c t e d what s u b j e c t s 14 looked f o r when they d i d att e n d t o the s t i m u l u s . Campbell e t a l . (1986) manipulated f a c t i o n s i z e (1 vs 3 others) as a between-subject v a r i a b l e and extremi t y of the norm as a w i t h i n - s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e . Extremity order was a l s o manipulated as a between s u b j e c t f a c t o r so t h a t some s u b j e c t s were s u b j e c t e d t o an i n i t i a l l y r e a s o n a b l e norm t h a t g r a d u a l l y became more and more unreasonable (extreme) over t r i a l s w h i l e other s u b j e c t s were s u b j e c t e d t o an i n i t i a l l y unreasonable norm t h a t g r a d u a l l y became more and more rea s o n a b l e over t r i a l s ( i . e . , f o r some s u b j e c t s the norm became more extreme as the t r i a l s p r o g ressed and f o r o t h e r s u b j e c t s the norm became l e s s extreme as the t r i a l s progressed.) The dependent v a r i a b l e s t h a t Campbell e t a l . measured were conformity and a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s . The s t i m u l i were p a i r s of dot p a t t e r n s f l a s h e d s e q u e n t i a l l y on a computer scre e n and s u b j e c t s were t o judge the r e l a t i v e number of dots i n the two p a t t e r n s . A t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s was measured as the number of times s u b j e c t s p r e s s e d a key t o view the dot p a t t e r n s b e f o r e g i v i n g a response ( s u b j e c t s were exposed t o judgments of the i n f l u e n c e source(s) p r i o r t o having the o p p o r t u n i t y t o view the s t i m u l u s t h a t p u r p o r t e d l y e l i c i t e d those judgments). Campbell e t a l . (1986) found t h a t a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s d i d not d i f f e r between s m a l l - and l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s (a s i m i l a r r e s u l t was found by Te s s e r e t a l . , 1983, u s i n g a l e s s d i r e c t measure of a t t e n t i o n ) . However, s m a l l -15 and l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s p a i d h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n under d i f f e r e n t circumstances. S m a l l - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s (who should be more r e l u c t a n t t o simply accept the o t h e r s ' judgments) p a i d more a t t e n t i o n t o the stimulus than l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s when the advocated norm c o u l d be c o r r e c t (low-e x t r e m i t y t r i a l s ) . L a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s (who sh o u l d be more r e l u c t a n t t o simply r e j e c t the o t h e r s ' judgments) p a i d more a t t e n t i o n t o the sti m u l u s than s m a l l - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s when the advocated norm was c l e a r l y wrong ( h i g h - e x t r e m i t y t r i a l s ) . Furthermore, a s e r i e s of c r o s s - l a g c o r r e l a t i o n s suggested t h a t the amount of a t t e n t i o n p a i d on e a r l i e r t r i a l s c o u l d be used t o i n d i c a t e d i s p o s i t i o n a l ambivalence and, thus, t o p r e d i c t conformity on l a t e r t r i a l s . Among s u b j e c t s i n the i n c r e a s i n g - e x t r e m i t y - o r d e r c o n d i t i o n , those who demonstrated more acceptance ambivalence on the e a r l y t r i a l s ( i . e . , looked more when the norm was re a s o n a b l e or low i n extremity) were l e s s l i k e l y t o conform on l a t e r t r i a l s when the norm was unreasonable or h i g h i n e x t r e m i t y . Among s u b j e c t s i n the d e c r e a s i n g - e x t r e m i t y - o r d e r c o n d i t i o n , those who demonstrated more r e j e c t i o n ambivalence on the e a r l y t r i a l s ( i . e . , looked more when the norm was unreasonable or h i g h i n extremity) were more l i k e l y t o conform on l a t e r t r i a l s when the norm was re a s o n a b l e . However, a t t e n t i o n t o the st i m u l u s , w i t h i n t r i a l s , pushed c o n f o r m i t y on those t r i a l s i n a r a t i o n a l d i r e c t i o n ; 16 somewhat i n c r e a s i n g acceptance of the o t h e r s ' judgments when they were c o r r e c t and somewhat d e c r e a s i n g acceptance when they were i n c o r r e c t . Campbell e t a l . (1986) noted t h a t "the d i s p o s i t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n of a t t e n t i o n (as a dependent v a r i a b l e ) f o r c u r r e n t conformity may be o p p o s i t e t o i t s d i r e c t i v e e f f e c t s (as an independent v a r i a b l e ) " (p. 323). That i s , a s u b j e c t who h e s i t a t e s when the o t h e r s are c l e a r l y wrong ( r i g h t ) may be demonstrating a r e l u c t a n c e t o r e j e c t (accept) the o t h e r s ' judgments, but examining the s t i m u l u s i n these circumstances may l e a d the s u b j e c t t o conclude t h a t the o t h e r s are wrong ( r i g h t ) i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . Seeing the need t o examine how a t t e n t i o n a f f e c t s c o n f o r m i t y when a t t e n t i o n i s under the c o n t r o l of the experimenter r a t h e r than the s u b j e c t , Campbell and F a i r e y (1989) manipulated f a c t i o n s i z e (1 vs 3 o t h e r s ) , a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s (1 vs 3 b r i e f exposures t o the s t i m u l u s ) and e x t r e m i t y order as between-subject v a r i a b l e s , and norm e x t r e m i t y as a w i t h i n - s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e . T h i s study was b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d above with r e f e r e n c e t o the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the r e l a t i v e predominance of i n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative i n f l u e n c e . The s t i m u l i c o n s i s t e d of the same dot p a t t e r n s used i n the Campbell e t a l . (1986) study. Campbell and F a i r e y reasoned t h a t i f s u b j e c t s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a s m a l l f a c t i o n spent the time they were a l l o t t e d t o examine the s t i m u l u s v a l i d a t i n g the o t h e r s ' judgments, h i g h e r s t i m u l u s a t t e n t i o n would somewhat i n c r e a s e c o n f o r m i t y w i t h low-1 7 e x t r e m i t y norms and s u b s t a n t i a l l y decrease c o n f o r m i t y w i t h h i g h - e x t r e m i t y norms. On the other hand, i f s u b j e c t s c o n f r o n t e d with a l a r g e f a c t i o n spent the time they were a l l o t t e d t o examine the s t i m u l u s s e a r c h i n g f o r reasons t o agree, h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n would g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e c o n f o r m i t y . Campbell and F a i r e y ' s p r e d i c t i o n s f o r the s m a l l - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s were supported. However, the p r e d i c t i o n of a g e n e r a l i n c r e a s e i n conformity with g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n among the l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s was not upheld. Although the l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s d i d conform somewhat more under c o n d i t i o n s of h i g h than low a t t e n t i o n , the e f f e c t was f a r from s i g n i f i c a n t . In d i s c u s s i n g the l a t t e r r e s u l t , Campbell and F a i r e y suggested t h a t the p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i used i n t h e i r study (dot p a t t e r n s ) may not have been "conducive t o the r e c o n s t r u a l of the stimulus i n h e r e n t i n the p r o c e s s of l o o k i n g f o r reasons t o agree" (p. 466). That i s , l a r g e -f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s may have, i n f a c t , looked f o r reasons t o agree, but found themselves unable t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the o b j e c t i v e dot p a t t e r n s . Campbell and F a i r e y suggested t h a t with more s u b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i , such as a t t i t u d e statements, c o u r t cases or moral dilemmas, the h y p o t h e s i z e d e f f e c t of a t t e n t i o n on c o n f o r m i t y i n l a r g e -f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s might be found. 18 R e c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus The i d e a t h a t the meaning of a st i m u l u s i s transformed by the s o c i a l context i n which i t appears was f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d by Asch (1940; 1948). Asch argued t h a t when people are f a c e d with a group judgment t h a t d i f f e r s from t h e i r own, they r e i n t e r p r e t the o b j e c t or i s s u e b e i n g e v a l u a t e d i n order t o make sense of the group's p o s i t i o n . In support of t h i s argument, Asch (1940) showed t h a t s t u d e n t s who b e l i e v e d t h a t a m a j o r i t y of t h e i r peers had r a t e d p o l i t i c i a n s as h i g h l y i n t e l l i g e n t thought of "statesmen and n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c i a n s " when making t h e i r own r a t i n g , whereas students who b e l i e v e d t h a t a m a j o r i t y of t h e i r peers had r a t e d p o l i t i c i a n s as r a t h e r u n i n t e l l i g e n t thought of " p o l i t i c a l hacks and neighborhood p o l i t i c i a n s " . S e v e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l accounts of co n f o r m i t y have been o f f e r e d s i n c e Asch (1952) conducted h i s c l a s s i c r e s e a r c h on the t o p i c . A l l e n and Wilder (1980) proposed a two-step t h e o r y of conformity t h a t r e i n t r o d u c e d the i d e a t h a t c o n f o r m i t y i s mediated by r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s i t s e l f . In the f i r s t s tep of t h i s theory, the presence o f a l a r g e f a c t i o n t h a t d i s a g r e e s w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l l e a d s the i n d i v i d u a l t o r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s . In the second s t e p , the r e c o n s t r u a l of the stim u l u s makes the group p o s i t i o n more i n f o r m a t i o n a l l y a c c e p t a b l e and leads the i n d i v i d u a l t o s h i f t toward the group p o s i t i o n . 19 A l l e n and Wilder (1980) found support f o r t h e i r t h e o r y i n a program of r e s e a r c h which used a t t i t u d e statements as the s t i m u l i . One experiment demonstrated t h a t s u b j e c t s exposed t o the unusual a t t i t u d e responses of a l a r g e f a c t i o n (a unanimous group of four) e x h i b i t e d uncommon i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the a s s o c i a t e d a t t i t u d e statements (Su b j e c t s o n l y gave t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the statements; c o n f o r m i t y or agreement with the group was not measured). S o c i a l support ( i n the form of one d i s s e n t i n g a t t i t u d e response) was enough t o d e l e t e t h i s r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n e f f e c t . The f a c t t h a t a r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n e f f e c t was found i n the l a r g e - f a c t i o n c o n d i t i o n , but not the s o c i a l - s u p p o r t c o n d i t i o n , p r o v i d e s support f o r the id e a t h a t l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s , and l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s alone, were l o o k i n g f o r reasons t o agree. A second experiment by A l l e n and W i l d e r (1980) demonstrated t h a t s u b j e c t s who were exposed t o the uncommon i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s g i v e n by the l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s i n t he f i r s t experiment s h i f t e d t h e i r own a t t i t u d e s toward the p o s i t i o n espoused by the l a r g e f a c t i o n i n the f i r s t experiment. P r e s e n t Study The purpose of the present study was t o t e s t the e f f e c t s of f a c t i o n s i z e , norm extremity, and a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s on conformity, r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s , and 20 subsequent p r i v a t e acceptance. The f a c t i o n s i z e m a n i p u l a t i o n had t h r e e l e v e l s — m a j o r i t y ( t h r e e unanimous o t h e r s ) , one-on-one (one i n f l u e n c e s o u r c e ) , and m i n o r i t y (one i n f l u e n c e source i n a group of t h r e e ) . A t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s (amount of time s u b j e c t s were g i v e n t o t h i n k about the stimulus) had two l e v e l s (low and h i g h ) . And norm e x t r e m i t y ( d i s t a n c e of the norm from the p r e t e s t mean) had two l e v e l s (medium and h i g h ) . The p r e s e n t study was v e r y s i m i l a r i n d e s i g n t o p r e v i o u s conformity s t u d i e s by Campbell and her a s s o c i a t e s (e.g., Campbell e t a l . , 1986; Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989, Campbell, 1990). However, i n s t e a d of the o b j e c t i v e dot s t i m u l i u t i l i z e d i n these p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , the p r e s e n t study used judgments about the s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of v a r i o u s t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s . Although t r a i t -a d j e c t i v e s c o n s t i t u t e value-judgment s t i m u l i , i n making the p r e d i c t i o n s f o r t h i s study, I assumed t h a t norm e x t r e m i t y and a t t e n t i o n would show the same e f f e c t s on the b a lance of normative and i n f o r m a t i o n a l mechanisms as they had f o r p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i . Conformity-*- was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as compromise (the e x t e n t t o which p u b l i c judgments were p u l l e d i n the d i r e c t i o n of the norm) r a t h e r than a b s o l u t e agreement w i t h the i n f l u e n c e source (a b i n a r y measure of acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of the norm). Conformity was measured by 1 Although the term conformity i s o f t e n r e s e r v e d f o r m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e , f o r s i m p l i c i t y ' s sake the term w i l l be used here t o r e f e r t o both m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e . 21 comparing the expressed o p i n i o n s of experimental s u b j e c t s w i t h those of c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s who responded t o the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s without exposure t o o t h e r s ' judgments. R e c o n s t r u a l was measured by comparing the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s g i v e n by experimental s u b j e c t s w i t h the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s g i v e n by the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . R e c o n s t r u a l s c o r e s , thus, i n d i c a t e the extent t o which e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s r e i n t e r p r e t e d the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s i n a d i r e c t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the norm advocated by an i n f l u e n c e source t h a t expressed unexpected o p i n i o n s . P r i v a t e acceptance was measured by having s u b j e c t s respond p r i v a t e l y , a t the end of the s e s s i o n , t o the same t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s used i n the c o n f o r m i t y t r i a l s . L i k e conformity, p r i v a t e acceptance was c a l c u l a t e d as a d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e ; the o p i n i o n s expressed by e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s on the p r i v a t e t r i a l s were compared w i t h the o p i n i o n s expressed by c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . P r e d i c t i o n s f o r Conformity In keeping w i t h past r e s e a r c h (e.g., Asch, 1956; Campbell e t a l . , 1986; Campbell e t a l . , 1989; MacNeil & S h e r i f , 1976; Tuddenham, 19 61), i t was expected t h a t because c o n f o r m i t y was measured i n terms of compromise, more extreme norms would l e a d t o more conformity. T h i s p r e d i c t i o n a n t i c i p a t e s a main e f f e c t f o r norm ex t r e m i t y . With r e s p e c t t o f a c t i o n s i z e , i t was hypothesized t h a t the unanimous 22 m a j o r i t y would produce the most conformity, the m i n o r i t y would produce the l e a s t conformity, and one i n f l u e n c e source would produce an i n t e r m e d i a t e amount of c o n f o r m i t y . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n a n t i c i p a t e s a main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e . I t was a l s o expected t h a t i f l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s look f o r reasons t o agree, and s u b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i make i t p o s s i b l e f o r t h e s e s u b j e c t s t o f i n d reasons t o agree (through r e c o n s t r u a l ) , h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n should g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e c o n f o r m i t y among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s . I f one-on-one s u b j e c t s and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s look t o v a l i d a t e the o t h e r s 7 judgments, then among these s u b j e c t s , h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n s h o u l d decrease conformity with the h i g h - e x t r e m i t y norm. Because the s t i m u l i were s u b j e c t i v e and the medium-extremity norm was s t i l l f a i r l y s u b s t a n t i a l i n the p r e s e n t study, i t was u n c l e a r whether hig h e r a t t e n t i o n should i n c r e a s e or decrease c o n f o r m i t y with the medium-extremity norm. However, what c o u l d be p r e d i c t e d was t h a t h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n would not decrease conformity as much f o r the medium e x t r e m i t y norm as i t would f o r the h i g h - e x t r e m i t y norm. These p r e d i c t i o n s f o r the t h r e e f a c t i o n - s i z e groups a n t i c i p a t e a F a c t i o n S i z e X Norm Extremity X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n . 23 P r e d i c t i o n s f o r Re c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus To date, t h e r e has been very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on r e c o n s t r u a l of the stim u l u s , and none of i t has measured or manipulated a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s . I f m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s are motivated t o f i n d i n f o r m a t i o n a l l y v a l i d reasons f o r the norm advocated by the i n f l u e n c e source, but one-on-one s u b j e c t s do not share t h i s m o t i v a t i o n , then m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s s h o u l d demonstrate more r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s than one-on-one s u b j e c t s . Furthermore, i f the m o t i v a t i o n t o f i n d i n f o r m a t i o n a l l y v a l i d reasons f o r the advocated norm i s more p r e s s i n g i n the case of m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s who are t r y i n g t o f i n d reasons t o p e r s o n a l l y agree with the norm than i n the case of m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s who are simply t r y i n g t o understand why the m i n o r i t y advocated the norm, then m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s should r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s . These p r e d i c t i o n s a n t i c i p a t e a main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e . In summary, the f o l l o w i n g p a t t e r n of r e c o n s t r u a l should a r i s e : m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s should demonstrate the most r e c o n s t r u a l of the stimulus, one-on-one s u b j e c t s should demonstrate the l e a s t r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s , and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s should demonstrate an i n t e r m e d i a t e amount of r e c o n s t r u a l . Moreover, g i v e n t h a t s t i m u l u s a t t e n t i o n i s presumably r e q u i r e d i n order t o r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s , 24 t h i s p a t t e r n should p r e v a i l o n l y under c o n d i t i o n s of h i g h a t t e n t i o n . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n a n t i c i p a t e s a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n . P r e d i c t i o n s f o r P r i v a t e Acceptance P r i v a t e acceptance ( a l s o c a l l e d i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n by Kelman, 1958) i s the extent t o which the norm advocated d u r i n g the p u b l i c t r i a l s a f f e c t s judgments when the i n f l u e n c e source i s no longer present t o p r o v i d e the norm and monitor responses. A measure of p r i v a t e acceptance was i n c l u d e d i n t h i s study i n order t o p r o v i d e a second o p p o r t u n i t y t o t e s t the hypothesis t h a t m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s are more l i k e l y t o agree with the norm under c o n d i t i o n s of h i g h a t t e n t i o n (because they have the o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s ) . The f i r s t t e s t of t h i s h y p othesis was p r o v i d e d by the c o n f o r m i t y measure. As s t a t e d above, i t was expected t h a t m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s would conform more under c o n d i t i o n s of h i g h than low a t t e n t i o n . However, i t was f e l t t h a t a c e i l i n g e f f e c t on conformity (with m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t i n g a h i g h degree of conformity even under low a t t e n t i o n ) might l i m i t the p o s s i b i l i t y of f i n d i n g a t t e n t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n conformity among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s , even i f the theory i s c o r r e c t . That i s , even i f h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n does l e a d t o more r e c o n s t r u a l of the 25 s t i m u l u s among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s , t h i s r e c o n s t r u a l may not be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o g r e a t e r conformity because l o w - a t t e n t i o n s u b j e c t s a l r e a d y conform t o a l a r g e degree. However, i f the l a r g e - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s i n the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n are r e c o n s t r u i n g the s t i m u l i t o a g r e a t e r extent than those i n the l o w - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n , t h a t r e c o n s t r u a l may t r a n s l a t e i n t o g r e a t e r p r i v a t e acceptance. The s u g g e s t i o n i s t h a t s u b j e c t s may conform, f o r whatever reason, but un l e s s they come t o b e l i e v e t h a t the norm was c o r r e c t , they w i l l not e x h i b i t p r i v a t e acceptance of t h a t norm. Rec o n s t r u a l of the st i m u l u s i s one way i n which s u b j e c t s may come t o b e l i e v e t h a t the norm was c o r r e c t . Thus, among s u b j e c t s who are motivated t o r e c o n s t r u e the stim u l u s ( i . e . , m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s ) , h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n should l e a d t o more r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s and g r e a t e r p r i v a t e acceptance. S i n c e i t i s expected t h a t p r i v a t e acceptance w i l l m i r r o r r e c o n s t r u a l , the e f f e c t s p r e d i c t e d f o r p r i v a t e acceptance are the same as those p r e d i c t e d f o r r e c o n s t r u a l ; t h a t i s , a main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e and a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n . 26 Method S u b j e c t s S u b j e c t s were 227 male and female u n i v e r s i t y undergraduate students, most of whom r e c e i v e d e x t r a course c r e d i t f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The r e s t of the s u b j e c t s were en t e r e d i n a cash draw f o r $100. Data from 29 ex p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s were d e l e t e d (2 because they had d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h the language or i n s t r u c t i o n s , 14 because of s u s p i c i o n , and 13 because they r a t i o n a l i z e d away the s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e m a n i p u l a t i o n by b e l i e v i n g , d e s p i t e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o the c o n t r a r y , t h a t the o t h e r s ' judgments d i d not r e p r e s e n t responses t o the same stimulus t a r g e t ) . In a d d i t i o n , one c o n t r o l s u b j e c t was d e l e t e d f o r f a i l i n g t o f o l l o w i n s t r u c t i o n s . Of the remaining 197 s u b j e c t s , 41 p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the m a j o r i t y c o n d i t i o n , 52 p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the one-on-one c o n d i t i o n , 32 p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n , and 72 p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n . Procedure Overview. Subjects, scheduled i n same-sex groups of 4, were met by a female experimenter who informed them t h a t the study was concerned with c o n t r a s t i n g people's t o p - o f - t h e -head responses t o t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s w i t h t h e i r more 27 t h o u g h t f u l responses. The experimenter e x p l a i n e d t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s would be r a t i n g the p o s i t i v i t y or s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y of t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s presented on a microcomputer, and t h a t the microcomputer would c o n t r o l how much time they had t o t h i n k about each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e b e f o r e g i v i n g t h e i r r a t i n g . On some t r i a l s , p a r t i c i p a n t s would have c o n s i d e r a b l e time t o t h i n k about the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e b e f o r e responding, while on other t r i a l s , p a r t i c i p a n t s would be r e q u i r e d t o respond t o the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e as soon as they had read i t . The experimenter a d m i n i s t e r e d a sample t r a i t - r a t i n g s c a l e , on paper, i n order t o f a m i l i a r i z e s u b j e c t s with the r a t i n g s c a l e they would be u s i n g on the computer. The experimenter then used one of the microcomputers t o demonstrate how t o complete the computerized t r a i t r a t i n g s . When a l l s u b j e c t s were f u l l y s a t i s f i e d t h a t they understood the procedure, they were ushered i n t o i n d i v i d u a l c u b i c l e s t o complete the t a s k . Upon completion of the computerized t r a i t r a t i n g s , s u b j e c t s were g i v e n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e which asked them t o i n d i c a t e the meaning t h a t they attached t o each of the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t they r a t e d on the computer. Then s u b j e c t s were a d m i n i s t e r e d a paper and p e n c i l t r a i t - r a t i n g s c a l e c o n t a i n i n g the same t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t they r a t e d e a r l i e r on the computer. F i n a l l y , s u b j e c t s completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n i n g m a n i p u l a t i o n checks and were d e b r i e f e d . 28 T r a i t - r a t i n g s c a l e . The t r a i t - r a t i n g t a s k c o n s i s t e d of 18 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s , of which 12 were c r i t i c a l items (on which i n f l u e n c e attempts were made) and 6 were f i l l e r items. The 12 c r i t i c a l items were chosen from a l a r g e r p o o l of items based on the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : each chosen t r a i t a d j e c t i v e e x h i b i t e d a s u b s t a n t i a l l y p o s i t i v e mean ( i . e . , 6.5 or above on a 9-point p o s i t i v i t y s c a l e ) and a s m a l l s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ( i . e . , l e s s than 1.7) when p r e t e s t e d on 94 undergraduate students e n r o l l e d i n a t h i r d - y e a r s o c i a l psychology course (see Table 1). That i s , most st u d e n t s t e s t e d shared a common, p o s i t i v e o p i n i o n about each c r i t i c a l t r a i t a d j e c t i v e . The 6 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s chosen t o be f i l l e r items each had a negative mean ( i . e . , below 4 on a 9-point p o s i t i v i t y s c a l e ) . The c r i t i c a l items were chosen t o be a l l p o s i t i v e t r a i t s and the f i l l e r items were chosen t o be a l l n e g a t i v e t r a i t s because of the use of a m i n o r i t y - i n f l u e n c e c o n d i t i o n i n t h i s study. Research has shown t h a t a m i n o r i t y t h a t h o l d s a c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n i s much more i n f l u e n t i a l than a m i n o r i t y t h a t does not h o l d a c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n (see Maass & C l a r k , 1984, or Chaiken & Stangor, 1987 f o r a r e v i e w ) . T h e r e f o r e , the c r i t i c a l t r i a l s c o u l d not have c o n s i s t e d of both p o s i t i v e and ne g a t i v e t r a i t s because then the m i n o r i t y c o u l d not respond i n a "normal" f a s h i o n on any f i l l e r t r i a l s without becoming i n c o n s i s t e n t . Note t h a t n e g a t i v e t r a i t s c o u l d have been used on the c r i t i c a l t r i a l s 29 and p o s i t i v e t r a i t s c o u l d have been used on the f i l l e r t r i a l s . T a b l e 1 Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s f o r the C r i t i c a l T r a i t  A d j e c t i v e s T r a i t A d j e c t i v e Mean Standard D e v i a t i o n A c c u r a t e 7.38 1.19 Conc i s e 6.70 1.26 Curi o u s 6.82 1. 34 Easygoing 7.38 1.32 E f f i c i e n t 7.66 1.24 L o g i c a l 7.01 1.23 Observant 7.16 1.26 P a s s i o n a t e 7.30 1. 34 P e r s e v e r i n g 7.06 1.44 Q u e s t i o n i n g 6.50 1.54 S e l f - c o n f i d e n t 7.70 1.10 T r u s t i n g 7.21 1.69 30 P u b l i c compromise task . The p u b l i c compromise t a s k was the computerized v e r s i o n of the t r a i t - r a t i n g s c a l e . The 18 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s were presented one a t a time on a microcomputer; f o r each t r i a l , s u b j e c t s were shown a t r a i t a d j e c t i v e and asked t o judge i t s - p o s i t i v i t y on a 9-point s c a l e anchored by very negative (1) and very p o s i t i v e (9). F a c t i o n s i z e . F a c t i o n s i z e was manipulated by exposing s u b j e c t s t o the responses of t h r e e unanimous i n f l u e n c e sources (a m a j o r i t y ) , one lone i n f l u e n c e source (one-on-one) , or one i n f l u e n c e source imbedded among two s o c i a l s u p p o r t e r s (a m i n o r i t y ) before they saw and responded t o each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e . T h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n was accomplished by g i v i n g experimental s u b j e c t s the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s . The microcomputers are c o n t r o l l e d by a master computer t h a t operates on e i t h e r one ( m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y ) or two (one-on-one) channels. Because the computer i s a b l e t o present the a d j e c t i v e s and c o l l e c t responses from only 1 (or 2) of you a t a time, you have t o go i n t u r n on each t r i a l . When i t i s not your t u r n , you w i l l see the computer prompt the others and r e c o r d t h e i r responses. However, you w i l l not be a b l e t o see the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e or respond u n t i l the computer i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s your t u r n . S u b j e c t s were then g i v e n a c a r d w i t h the l e t t e r A, B, C, or D ( m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y ) or the l e t t e r A or B (one-31 on-one) and t o l d t h a t t h i s l e t t e r code would be used by the computer t o i d e n t i f y them. Note t h a t each person's l e t t e r code was a s s i g n e d p u b l i c l y so t h a t s u b j e c t s knew t h a t t h e i r responses were i d e n t i f i a b l e . Subjects were t o l d t h a t the master computer would i n i t i a l l y generate a random o r d e r t o determine the sequence i n which they would respond t o the 18 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s . Subjects were then a s s i g n e d t o c u b i c l e s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r l e t t e r code. The microcomputer i n each c u b i c l e had been p r e s e t t o generate a response o r d e r i n which the s u b j e c t u s i n g t h a t computer would respond l a s t . When i t was not t h e i r t u r n , s u b j e c t s saw the computer prompt the o t h e r s and r e c o r d t h e i r responses. However, s u b j e c t s were not a b l e t o see the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e or respond u n t i l the computer i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was t h e i r t u r n . A t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s . A t t e n t i o n was manipulated by v a r y i n g the number of seconds s u b j e c t s were g i v e n t o c o n s i d e r each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e b e f o r e g i v i n g t h e i r r a t i n g . A t t e n t i o n was manipulated w i t h i n s u b j e c t s such t h a t f o r each s u b j e c t , s i x of the c r i t i c a l t r i a l s and t h r e e of the f i l l e r t r i a l s were a s s o c i a t e d with low a t t e n t i o n , and the o t h e r s i x c r i t i c a l t r i a l s and t h r e e f i l l e r t r i a l s were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h a t t e n t i o n . A t t e n t i o n was p r e s e t f o r each of the s i x f i l l e r t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s , but a t t e n t i o n was randomized f o r each of the 12 c r i t i c a l t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s . S u b j e c t s were g i v e n 2 seconds t o read each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e . On the low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , s u b j e c t s were asked t o respond t o the 3 2 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e immediately a f t e r r e a d i n g i t . On the h i g h -a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , s u b j e c t s were g i v e n an a d d i t i o n a l 15 seconds t o t h i n k about each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e b e f o r e b e i n g asked t o respond. Of course, t h e r e i s no guarantee t h a t s u b j e c t s spent those e x t r a 15 seconds t h i n k i n g about the s t i m u l u s t r a i t , but the o p p o r t u n i t y was t h e r e . A 5-second countdown appearing i n the c e n t e r of the s c r e e n s i g n a l e d t o s u b j e c t s t h a t t h e i r response was r e q u i r e d . To ensure t h a t s u b j e c t s responded a t the a p p r o p r i a t e time a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n , i t was emphasized t o s u b j e c t s t h a t they must respond while the 5-second countdown was i n p r o g r e s s . S u b j e c t s were informed t h a t the keyboard would be l o c k e d and would not r e c o r d t h e i r responses p r i o r t o the onset of the countdown. They were a l s o t o l d t h a t i t was i m p e r a t i v e t h a t they respond before the countdown r a n out ( i . e . , reached z e r o ) . I f the countdown ran out b e f o r e a s u b j e c t had responded, the prompt "You must respond now" appeared on the screen. E x t r e m i t y of the norm. Extremity of the norm was manipulated by having the o t h e r s ' responses t o the c r i t i c a l t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s d i f f e r e i t h e r moderately (medium extremity) or extremely (high extremity) from the modal responses g i v e n by p r e t e s t s u b j e c t s . Extremity of the norm was a l s o manipulated w i t h i n s u b j e c t s such t h a t f o r each e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t , s i x of the c r i t i c a l t r i a l s had medium-extremity norms, and the other s i x c r i t i c a l t r i a l s had h i g h - e x t r e m i t y 33 norms. Norm extremi t y was randomized f o r each of the 12 c r i t i c a l t r i a l s . On h i g h - e x t r e m i t y t r i a l s , the i n f l u e n c e s o urce(s) always gave a response of 1 (very n e g a t i v e ) . On medium-extremity t r i a l s , the i n f l u e n c e source(s) always gave a response of 4 ( s l i g h t l y n e g a t i v e ) . Norm e x t r e m i t y was not a p p l i c a b l e t o the f i l l e r t r i a l s because the o t h e r s always gave re a s o n a b l e responses on the f i l l e r t r i a l s . T r i a l d e s c r i p t i o n . For each t r i a l , the s c r e e n c l e a r e d , the t r i a l number and t r i a l type ( f a s t or slow response) were p r i n t e d a t the top of the screen, and the response s c a l e appeared i n the bottom h a l f of the screen. The prompt "Person ( f i r s t l e t t e r c o d e ) : " a l s o appeared below the response s c a l e . A f t e r a randomized time d e l a y , a response was p r i n t e d next t o the prompt (the time d e l a y v a r i e d between 2 and 7 seconds f o r l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s and between 17 and 22 seconds f o r h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s ) . The computer then p r i n t e d the prompt "Person (second l e t t e r c o d e ) : 1 1 . For s u b j e c t s i n the m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y c o n d i t i o n s , the sequence continued u n t i l prompts and responses had been p r i n t e d f o r a l l t h r e e of the o t h e r s . The o t h e r s ' responses were f a l l a c i o u s and were programmed by the computer. The f i r s t , second, t h i r d , and f o u r t h l e t t e r c o d e s v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o the computer-generated response o r d e r , but the s u b j e c t ' s l e t t e r c o d e was always l a s t . When i t was the s u b j e c t ' s t u r n , the prompt f o r the s u b j e c t ' s l e t t e r c o d e appeared underneath the o t h e r 34 l e t t e r c o d e prompts and the message "Press <D> t o see t r a i t a d j e c t i v e " f l a s h e d on and o f f i n the top h a l f of the s c r e e n . D e p r e s s i n g the D key caused the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e t o appear i n the top h a l f of the screen; the response s c a l e , the prompt messages, and the o t h e r s ' responses remained v i s i b l e i n the lower p o r t i o n of the screen. The t r a i t a d j e c t i v e remained v i s i b l e u n t i l the s u b j e c t had responded. A f t e r the amount of time a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the t r i a l ' s a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n , the 5-second countdown commenced, s i g n a l l i n g the s u b j e c t t o respond. When s u b j e c t s responded, t h e i r response was p r i n t e d next t o t h e i r prompt l e t t e r . A f t e r a b r i e f d e l a y , the s c r e e n c l e a r e d and the sequence repeated f o r the next t r i a l . C onformity Feedback The 12 c r i t i c a l t r i a l s were T r i a l s 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18. On the c r i t i c a l t r i a l s , the d e v i a n t norm was advocated by a l l t h r e e o t h e r s i n the m a j o r i t y c o n d i t i o n , by the one other i n the one-on-one c o n d i t i o n , and by the t h i r d other i n the m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n . The two s o c i a l supporters i n the m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n gave the p r e t e s t modal response on the c r i t i c a l t r i a l s . The d i s s e n t e r was always the t h i r d respondent i n the m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n because on l y the t h i r d respondent had the added impact of d i s a g r e e i n g with a m a j o r i t y t h a t was e x i s t e n t a t 35 the time he or she responded and because, as mentioned above, r e s e a r c h has shown t h a t a m i n o r i t y w i e l d s more i n f l u e n c e i f i t i s c o n s i s t e n t (see Maass & C l a r k , 1984 or Chaiken & Stangor, 1987 f o r a review). In the p r e s e n t study, the t h i r d respondent c o n s i s t e n t l y r a t e d a l l p o s i t i v e t r a i t s n e g a t i v e l y . On the s i x f i l l e r t r i a l s , the o t h e r s ' responses corresponded with the modal response g i v e n d u r i n g p r e t e s t i n g . In the m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n s , the t h r e e o t h e r s were unanimous i n g i v i n g the modal response on two of the f i l l e r t r i a l s ; on the remaining f o u r f i l l e r t r i a l s , two of the others gave the modal response (the t h i r d respondent was always one of t h e s e ) , and the remaining o t h e r gave a response which was adjacent t o the modal response and which, although not the modal response, was a l s o a p o p u l a r answer on the p r e t e s t . In the one-on-one c o n d i t i o n , the oth e r gave the modal response on a l l f i l l e r t r i a l s . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e A f t e r completing the conformity task, s u b j e c t s were g i v e n a paper-and-pencil i n t e r p r e t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix A) t o f i l l out i n p r i v a t e . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e contained the same 18 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s used i n the c o n f o r m i t y t r i a l s , but i n s t e a d of a s k i n g s u b j e c t s f o r t h e i r p o s i t i v i t y r a t i n g s on the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s , t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e asked s u b j e c t s t o i n d i c a t e how they had 36 i n t e r p r e t e d the meaning of each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e when they r a t e d i t f o r p o s i t i v i t y . The s u b j e c t s responded t o each i n t e r p r e t a t i o n problem on a 9-point s c a l e which was anchored a t e i t h e r end by two extremes i n a p l a u s i b l e continuum of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . For example, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r the t r a i t ' p e r s e v e r i n g ' were anchored a t the p o s i t i v e end by "A determined person who does not e a s i l y g i v e up" and a t the n e g a t i v e end by "A person who does not know when t o q u i t " . P r i v a t e Acceptance A f t e r completing the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , s u b j e c t s were gi v e n a paper-and-pencil v e r s i o n of the t r a i t -r a t i n g s c a l e (see Appendix B). The experimenter e x p l a i n e d t o s u b j e c t s t h a t she was i n t e r e s t e d i n how they responded g i v e n t h a t they had now had a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of time t o t h i n k about each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e . S u b j e c t s were t o l d not t o put t h e i r name or any other i d e n t i f y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on the pa p e r - a n d - p e n c i l t r a i t - r a t i n g s c a l e and t o leave i t i n t h e i r c u b i c l e when they were f i n i s h e d . C o n t r o l S u b j e c t s A group of c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s responded alone t o the same s t i m u l i used i n the conformity t r i a l s . The order of p r e s e n t a t i o n and a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n was randomized f o r each 37 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e j u s t as i t was f o r the experimental s u b j e c t s . Obviously the norm-extremity m a n i p u l a t i o n d i d not a p p l y t o the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s as they were not exposed t o the responses of any o t h e r s . The c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s a l s o completed the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the paper-a n d - p e n c i l a t t i t u d e i n v e n t o r y alone, as d i d the e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s . C a l c u l a t i o n of the Dependent Measures The computer recorded s u b j e c t s ' responses f o r the 12 c r i t i c a l c o n f o r m i t y t r i a l s . For each c r i t i c a l t r i a l , i t a l s o r e c o r d e d whether the s u b j e c t had t o be prompted f o r one of the f o l l o w i n g two reasons: 1) f a i l i n g t o respond b e f o r e the 5-second countdown ran out; and 2) g i v i n g a response t h a t d i d not f a l l i n the 1-9 range. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was used o n l y t o d e l e t e the data f o r any t r i a l s i n which a s u b j e c t f a i l e d t o respond w i t h i n the time a l l o t t e d on a low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l . I had intended t o a l s o d e l e t e s u b j e c t s who demonstrated a f a i l u r e t o take the t a s k s e r i o u s l y by r e q u i r i n g prompts on t h r e e or more of the twelve c r i t i c a l t r i a l s , but no one f e l l i n t o t h i s category. I c a l c u l a t e d p u b l i c compromise s c o r e s , p r i v a t e compromise s c o r e s , and r e c o n s t r u a l s c o r e s f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s by comparing t h e i r responses on the r e l e v a n t t a s k s w i t h those of c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . P r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s e s 38 i n d i c a t e d t h a t the responses of c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s d i d not d i f f e r by a t t e n t i o n on any of the t a s k s ; t h e r e f o r e , the mean responses f o r the whole c o n t r o l group were used as the comparison f i g u r e s f o r both low- and h i g h - a t t e n t i o n e x p e r i m e n t a l responses. P u b l i c and p r i v a t e compromise s c o r e s i n d i c a t e the e x t e n t t o which experimental responses were p u l l e d i n the d i r e c t i o n of the advocated norm. Higher numbers i n d i c a t e g r e a t e r compromise. Rec o n s t r u a l scores i n d i c a t e the e x t e n t t o which experimental s u b j e c t s gave i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the d e v i a n t p o s i t i v i t y r a t i n g s advocated by the i n f l u e n c e s o u r c e ( s ) . For example, f o r the t r a i t ' p e r s e v e r i n g ' , the c l o s e r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t o "a person who doesn't know when t o q u i t " and f u r t h e r away i t i s from "a determined person who does not e a s i l y g i v e up" the more c o n s i s t e n t i t i s w i t h the n e g a t i v e r a t i n g of ' p e r s e v e r i n g ' g i v e n by the i n f l u e n c e s o u r c e ( s ) . Higher numbers i n d i c a t e more n e g a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n s of the t r a i t s or more c o n s t r u a l i n the d i r e c t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the advocated norm. Conformity scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each e xperimental s u b j e c t by f i r s t s u b t r a c t i n g each of t h e i r responses on the 1 2 c r i t i c a l t r i a l s from the corresponding mean responses of the c o n t r o l group. Then the t h r e e compromise s c o r e s f o r each combination of a t t e n t i o n (low, high) and norm e x t r e m i t y (low, high) were averaged. P r i v a t e acceptance s c o r e s and 39 r e c o n s t r u a l s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g the same procedure as f o r the co n f o r m i t y s c o r e s . R e s u l t s Conformity Conformity s c o r e s (shown i n Table 2) were a n a l y z e d i n a F a c t i o n S i z e ( m i n o r i t y , one-on-one, or m a j o r i t y ) X A t t e n t i o n (low o r high) X Norm Extremity (medium or high) ANOVA w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on the l a s t two v a r i a b l e s . As expected t h e r e was a r e l i a b l e main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e , F(2,122)=18.62, p_<.001. T h e m a j o r i t y produced more p u l l on judgments (M=1.27) than e i t h e r one other (M=.43) or the m i n o r i t y (M=.06). Each of the th r e e c e l l means was t e s t e d a g a i n s t zero (no i n f l u e n c e e x e r t e d ) . These t e s t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of conformity was e x h i b i t e d i n the m a j o r i t y and one-on-one c o n d i t i o n s (both ts>4.13, both p.s<.001), but not i n the m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n (t<l) . The expected main e f f e c t f o r norm ex t r e m i t y was a l s o r e l i a b l e , F ( l , 122)=10.89, p_<.001. High extre m i t y norms e x e r t e d more p u l l on s u b j e c t s ' judgments (M=.74) than d i d medium e x t r e m i t y norms (M=.48). There was a l s o a main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n , F ( l , 122)=5.25, p_<.03. S u b j e c t s ' conformed more on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=.69) than on the low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=.53). 40 T a b l e 2 Conformity Scores as a Fun c t i o n of F a c t i o n S i z e . A t t e n t i o n . and Norm Extremity T r i a l s Low A t t e n t i o n High A t t e n t i o n F a c t i o n S i z e Low High Extremity Extremity Low Extr e m i t y High E x t r e m i t y M i n o r i t y (n=32) -.18 .05 .12 .26 One-On-One (n=52) .32 .45 .37 . 59 M a j o r i t y (n=41) .96 1.43 1.16 1.54 The primary p r e d i c t i o n d e r i v e d from the n o t i o n t h a t s u b j e c t s exposed t o a s m a l l f a c t i o n examine the s t i m u l u s t o v a l i d a t e the o t h e r s ' judgments, whereas s u b j e c t s exposed t o a l a r g e f a c t i o n examine the stim u l u s t o f i n d reasons t o agree. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t was expected t h a t among one-on-one and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s , h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n would decrease c o n f o r m i t y t o a g r e a t e r extent with more extreme norms; however, i t was expected t h a t among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s , h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n would g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e c o n f o r m i t y . Such 41 a p r e d i c t i o n a n t i c i p a t e s a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n X E x t r e m i t y i n t e r a c t i o n . No such i n t e r a c t i o n was found. And no o t h e r e f f e c t s were r e l i a b l e . P r i v a t e Acceptance P r i v a t e acceptance scores (shown i n T a b l e 3) were ana l y z e d i n a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n X Norm E x t r e m i t y ANOVA w i t h repeated measures on the l a s t two v a r i a b l e s . There was a main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e , F(2,121)=4.04, p_<.02. Su b j e c t s i n the m a j o r i t y c o n d i t i o n e x h i b i t e d more p r i v a t e acceptance (M=.45) than s u b j e c t s i n the m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n (M=-.10). Subjects i n the one-on-one c o n d i t i o n e x h i b i t e d an i n t e r m e d i a t e amount of p r i v a t e acceptance (M=.17) which d i d not d i f f e r r e l i a b l y from the amount of p r i v a t e acceptance d i s p l a y e d by e i t h e r of the o t h e r two groups. In comparing the c e l l means t o zero (no p r i v a t e a c c e p t a n c e ) , i t was found t h a t only the s u b j e c t s exposed t o the m a j o r i t y d i s p l a y e d a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of p r i v a t e acceptance (t=2.55, p_<.02). There was a l s o a main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n , F ( l , 121) =7.96, p_<.01. The amount of p r i v a t e acceptance shown f o r a t r a i t a d j e c t i v e depended upon the amount of a t t e n t i o n a s s o c i a t e d with the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e on the computer t r i a l s . Subjects e x h i b i t e d more p r i v a t e acceptance on t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h - a t t e n t i o n computer t r i a l s (M=.27) than on those a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l o w - a t t e n t i o n 42 computer t r i a l s (M=.ll). Comparing the c e l l means t o zero i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t s d i s p l a y e d a r e l i a b l e amount p r i v a t e acceptance i n r e a c t i o n t o t r a i t s presented i n the h i g h -a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , t ( 123) =3.28, p_<.002, but not i n r e a c t i o n t o t r a i t s presented i n the low a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , t(123)=1.29, p_>.20. No other e f f e c t s were r e l i a b l e . T a b l e 3 P r i v a t e Acceptance Scores as a F u n c t i o n of F a c t i o n S i z e .  A t t e n t i o n , and Norm Extremity T r i a l s Low A t t e n t i o n High A t t e n t i o n F a c t i o n S i z e Low Extremity High Extremity Low Ext r e m i t y High E x t r e m i t y M i n o r i t y (n=32) -.35 -.28 . 11 . 12 One-On-One (n=52) . 09 . 19 .13 .28 M a j o r i t y (n=41) .28 .56 .54 .42 I t had been a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e would be a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n , such t h a t h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n 43 would l e a d t o more p r i v a t e acceptance among m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s , but not among one-on-one s u b j e c t s . The F a c t i o n - S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n (shown i n F i g u r e 1) was r e l i a b l e , F (2,121) =3 .51, p_<.04, but the simple e f f e c t s of a t t e n t i o n w i t h i n l e v e l s of f a c t i o n s i z e showed t h a t a t t e n t i o n r e l i a b l y i n c r e a s e d p r i v a t e acceptance o n l y f o r m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s (F=10.28, p<.003). M i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed s i g n i f i c a n t n e gative p r i v a t e i n f l u e n c e ( i . e . , r e actance) i n response t o t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=-.31), t(31)=-2.26, p_<.05, and p o s i t i v e , though n o n s i g n i f i c a n t , p r i v a t e i n f l u e n c e i n response t o the t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d with h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=.12, t<l) . Higher a t t e n t i o n s l i g h t l y i n c r e a s e d p r i v a t e acceptance f o r m a j o r i t y and one-on-one s u b j e c t s , but the e f f e c t was n e g l i g i b l e (both F s < l ) . M a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed r e l i a b l e p r i v a t e i n f l u e n c e i n response t o both low- and h i g h -a t t e n t i o n t r a i t s (both ts>2.13, both p_s<.05). One-on-one s u b j e c t s , on the other hand, d i d not show r e l i a b l e p r i v a t e i n f l u e n c e i n response t o e i t h e r low- or h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r a i t s (both ts<1.7, both p_s>.05). 44 o .e-i 0.5-0.4 0.3 0.2-o £ 0.1-0.0 o u I £ - o . H - 0 J --0.3 -0.4--0.5-• LOW ATTENTION O HIGH ATTENTION MINORITY ONE-ON-ONE MAJORITY F i g u r e 1. P r i v a t e compromise as a f u n c t i o n of f a c t i o n s i z e and a t t e n t i o n to the s t i m u l u s . 45 I t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g t o examine how s u b j e c t s ' responses changed from the p u b l i c t o the p r i v a t e s i t u a t i o n . For t h i s purpose, d e c l i n e - i n - i n f l u e n c e s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d by s u b t r a c t i n g s u b j e c t s ' p r i v a t e compromise s c o r e s f o r each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e from t h e i r p u b l i c compromise s c o r e s , and then averaging t h e i r t h r e e d i f f e r e n c e s c o r e s f o r each combination of a t t e n t i o n (low or high) and norm e x t r e m i t y (medium or h i g h ) . Higher d e c l i n e - i n - i n f l u e n c e s c o r e s , thus, i n d i c a t e t h a t s u b j e c t s ' p r i v a t e judgments of the s t i m u l u s were c l o s e r t o the c o n t r o l group response than were t h e i r p r e v i o u s p u b l i c judgments. D e c l i n e - i n - i n f l u e n c e scores were analyzed i n a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n X Norm Extremity ANOVA wit h r e p e a t e d measures on the l a s t two v a r i a b l e s . There was a main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e , F (2 ,121) =12 . 93 , p_<.001, r e f l e c t i n g the f a c t t h a t s u b j e c t s exposed t o a m a j o r i t y e x h i b i t e d more d e c l i n e i n i n f l u e n c e (M=.82) than d i d s u b j e c t s exposed t o one o t h e r (M=.26) or a m i n o r i t y (M=.16). T h i s p a t t e r n of d e c l i n e - i n - i n f l u e n c e scores matches p r e c i s e l y the p a t t e r n of c o n f o r m i t y s c o r e s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i n f l u e n c e d e c l i n e d the most f o r those who i n i t i a l l y conformed the most (and t h e r e f o r e had the most room t o r e v e r t ) . There was a l s o a main e f f e c t f o r norm extremity, F(l,121)=7.41, p<.007, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s u b j e c t s ' e x h i b i t e d more d e c l i n e - i n -i n f luence on t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s f o r which they had been exposed t o a more extreme norm (Ms=.34 and .50). T h i s 46 p a t t e r n a g a i n matches the conformity data i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s u b j e c t s r e v e r t e d the most on those t r i a l s on which they conformed the most. In g e n e r a l , the d e c l i n e - i n - i n f l u e n c e r e s u l t s a p p a r e n t l y r e f l e c t o n l y a r e g r e s s i o n e f f e c t or a f l o o r e f f e c t . A simple r e g r e s s i o n phenomenon would cause the d e c l i n e - i n - i n f l u e n c e t o be g r e a t e s t i n those c i r c u m s t a n c e s where s u b j e c t s conformed the most. And i n those circumstances where s u b j e c t s were not i n i t i a l l y i n f l u e n c e d ( i . e . d i d not conform), they c o u l d not show any s u b s t a n t i a l d e c l i n e i n i n f l u e n c e . No other e f f e c t s were r e l i a b l e . R e c o n s t r u a l of the S t i m u l i R e c o n s t r u a l scores (shown i n Table 4) were an a l y z e d i n a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n X Norm Extremity ANOVA w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on the l a s t two v a r i a b l e s . Although the a n t i c i p a t e d main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e was not r e l i a b l e (Z<1)/ the expected main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n was r e l i a b l e , F(l,122)=8.89, p_<.003. Subjects e x h i b i t e d s i g n i f i c a n t r e c o n s t r u a l of the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t had been p r e s e n t e d t o them on h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=.27), t(124)=2.66, p_<.01, but d i d not re c o n s t r u e the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s which had been pr e s e n t e d t o them on the low a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=.02, t<l) . 47 T a b l e 4 R e c o n s t r u a l Scores as a Fun c t i o n of F a c t i o n S i z e . A t t e n t i o n . and Norm Ext r e m i t y T r i a l s Low A t t e n t i o n High A t t e n t i o n F a c t i o n S i z e Low High Extremity Extremity Low Extr e m i t y High E x t r e m i t y M i n o r i t y (n=32) -.27 -.01 .30 .44 One-On-One (n=52) .00 -.05 . 19 .28 M a j o r i t y (n=41) .11 .26 .27 .20 I t had been a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e would be a F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n such t h a t h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n would i n c r e a s e s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t among m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s than among one-on-one s u b j e c t s . The F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n (shown i n F i g u r e 2) was onl y marginal, F(2,122)=2.21, p<.12, and i n d i c a t e d t h a t h i g h e r a t t e n t i o n i n c r e a s e d s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l more among m i n o r i t y and one-on-one s u b j e c t s than among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s . M i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s demonstrated 48 F i g u r e 2. R e c o n s t r u a l of the s t imulus as a f u n c t i o n of f a c t i o n s i z e and a t t e n t i o n to the s t i m u l u s . 49 s l i g h t n e g a t i v e r e c o n s t r u a l of the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t had been pr e s e n t e d on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=-.14) and the expected r e c o n s t r u a l of the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s on the h i g h -a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=.37). The d i f f e r e n c e between the s e means was h i g h l y r e l i a b l e (F=8.99, p_<.005). The m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s ' n e g a t i v e r e c o n s t r u a l of the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r a i t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t they were g i v i n g even more p o s i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t o these t r a i t s than were the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . The one-on-one s u b j e c t s d i d not r e c o n s t r u e the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t had been presented on the low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=-.02), but d i d r e c o n s t r u e the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s t h a t had been presented on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (M=.23). The d i f f e r e n c e between these means was m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (F=3.73, p_<.06). The m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s r e g a r d l e s s o f whether they had been presented on low- or h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (Ms=.19 and .23). There was no d i f f e r e n c e between thes e means (F<1). Although the F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n on r e c o n s t r u a l was onl y marginal, i t i s i n f o r m a t i v e n e v e r t h e l e s s because i t p a r a l l e l s the s i g n i f i c a n t F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n on the p r i v a t e acceptance measure. No other e f f e c t s were r e l i a b l e . 50 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between Stimulus R e c o n s t r u a l and P u b l i c and  P r i v a t e I n f l u e n c e I f s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l mediates the c o n f o r m i t y p r o c e s s and a l l o w s s u b j e c t s t o i n t e r n a l i z e the norm, then r e c o n s t r u a l s c o r e s should be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h c o n f o r m i t y s c o r e s and p r i v a t e acceptance s c o r e s . C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n , the c o r r e l a t i o n s (shown i n T a b l e 5) were p o s i t i v e and h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p_<.005) f o r a l l f a c t i o n - s i z e groups. 51 T a b l e 5 C o r r e l a t i o n Between Stimulus R e c o n s t r u a l and P u b l i c and  P r i v a t e I n f l u e n c e f o r M i n o r i t y . One-On-One and M a j o r i t y  S u b j e c t s I n f l u e n c e R e c o n s t r u a l Low A t t e n t i o n High A t t e n t i o n Conformity P r i v a t e Acceptance M i n o r i t y S u b j e c t s (n=32) .71 .57 .74 .79 Conformity P r i v a t e Acceptance One-On-One Su b j e c t s (n=52) .46 .40 .66 .72 Conformity P r i v a t e Acceptance M a j o r i t y S u b j e c t s (n=41) .69 .58 .85 .68 Note. A l l c o r r e l a t i o n s are r e l i a b l e a t the .005 l e v e l , However, i f s u b j e c t s do not have enough time t o r e c o n s t r u e the sti m u l u s before g i v i n g t h e i r p u b l i c response on l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , then the c o r r e l a t i o n s between r e c o n s t r u a l s c o r e s and p u b l i c and p r i v a t e compromise s c o r e s 52 shou l d be lower on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s than on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . T h i s was not the case as the magnitude of the c o r r e l a t i o n s d i d not d i f f e r by a t t e n t i o n f o r any of the f a c t i o n - s i z e groups. D i s c u s s i o n The main purpose f o r conducting t h i s r e s e a r c h was t o show t h a t f a c t i o n s i z e a f f e c t s what people do when they are g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y t o atte n d t o c o n f o r m i t y s t i m u l i . Hypotheses f o l l o w e d from Campbell e t a l . ' s (1986) s u g g e s t i o n t h a t people c o n f r o n t e d with a smal l f a c t i o n ( i n t h i s case, a m i n o r i t y or one other) are p r i m a r i l y motivated t o be c o r r e c t and examine the sti m u l u s i n order t o v a l i d a t e the o t h e r s ' judgments, w h i l e people confronted with a l a r g e f a c t i o n ( i n t h i s case, t h r e e others) are motivated t o both be c o r r e c t and a v o i d disagreement, so they look f o r i n f o r m a t i o n a l reasons t o agree. Conformity I t was expected, on the b a s i s of e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h by Campbell (Campbell e t a l . , 1986; Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989), t h a t i f s u b j e c t s exposed t o a l a r g e f a c t i o n look a t the s t i m u l u s i n order t o f i n d reasons t o agree, then the o p p o r t u n i t y t o atte n d t o the stim u l u s would i n c r e a s e 53 c o n f o r m i t y r e g a r d l e s s of norm extre m i t y . I t was f u r t h e r expected t h a t i f s u b j e c t s exposed t o a s m a l l f a c t i o n look a t the s t i m u l u s i n order t o v a l i d a t e the o t h e r s ' judgments, then the o p p o r t u n i t y t o a t t e n d t o the s t i m u l u s would decrease conformity, e s p e c i a l l y with a h i g h - e x t r e m i t y (or o b v i o u s l y i n c o r r e c t ) norm. Co n t r a r y t o e x p e c t a t i o n s , conformity s c o r e s showed a main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n and a main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e , but no F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n X E x t r e m i t y i n t e r a c t i o n . T h i s unexpected r e s u l t r e f l e c t e d the f a c t t h a t a t t e n t i o n i n c r e a s e d conformity f o r a l l f a c t i o n - s i z e groups a t both l e v e l s of norm extremity. P r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h which o b t a i n e d the proposed t h r e e f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n and no main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n (Campbell, 1990; Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989) used p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i and dramatic d i f f e r e n c e s i n norm e x t r e m i t y . Thus, i t may be t h a t the t h r e e f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n would be obtained i n the p r e s e n t study w i t h a more dramatic m a n i p u l a t i o n of norm e x t r e m i t y ( i . e . , a h i g h -e x t r e m i t y norm of g r e a t e r magnitude). However, i t seems l i k e l y t h a t the absence of the t h r e e - f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n i n the p r e s e n t study may r e p r e s e n t an important d i f f e r e n c e between o b j e c t i v e p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i and the s u b j e c t i v e o p i n i o n s t i m u l i used here. As noted e a r l i e r , with f a c t u a l judgments (e.g., p e r c e p t u a l s t i m u l i ) , t h e r e are o b j e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t responses. When the advocated norm i s c l o s e t o the 54 o b j e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t response or s u b j e c t s are prevented from examining the s t i m u l u s , i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e mechanisms are p r o b a b l y predominant. As the advocated norm moves f u r t h e r away from the o b j e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t response and s u b j e c t s are allowed t o examine the s t i m u l u s , the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t s u b j e c t s b e l i e v e the advocated norm t o be c o r r e c t becomes more and more remote. In t h i s case, normative i n f l u e n c e mechanisms must become i n c r e a s i n g l y more important r e l a t i v e t o i n f o r m a t i o n a l mechanisms i n a c c o u n t i n g f o r any i n f l u e n c e obtained. With v a l u e judgments (e.g., o p i n i o n s t i m u l i ) such as those used here, t h e r e are no o b j e c t i v e l y c o r r e c t responses. " C o r r e c t n e s s " i s determined by s o c i a l comparison. Maass, West and C i a l d i n i (1987) s t a t e d t h a t "an o p i n i o n i s more l i k e l y t o be p e r c e i v e d as c o r r e c t the l a r g e r the number of people who share i t " (p.65). I t f o l l o w s t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a l mechanisms may always be more important w i t h v a l u e judgments than w i t h p e r c e p t u a l judgments and t h a t f a c t i o n s i z e may have more impact w i t h value judgments than w i t h p e r c e p t u a l judgments ( i n c o n t r a s t t o p e r c e p t u a l judgments, w i t h v a l u e judgments the i n f o r m a t i o n a l advantage of a l a r g e f a c t i o n may be s u b s t a n t i a l because " c o r r e c t n e s s " i s determined by s o c i a l comparison). The two p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f f e r e d f o r the l a c k of a 3 - f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n on c o n f o r m i t y s c o r e s ( i . e . , the nondramatic ma n i p u l a t i o n of norm e x t r e m i t y and the predominance of i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e w i t h v a l u e 55 judgments) may be r e l a t e d i n t h a t i f the " c o r r e c t n e s s " of v a l u e judgments i s determined by s o c i a l comparison, the norm would have t o be very extreme be f o r e i t might be d i s m i s s e d as i n v a l i d . The c o n f o r m i t y data from t h i s study are most e a s i l y accounted f o r by an e x p l a n a t i o n i n terms of i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e mechanisms. The main e f f e c t f o r f a c t i o n s i z e on c o n f o r m i t y may simply r e f l e c t the i n c r e a s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a l v a l u e of v a r i o u s degrees of consensus. Three unanimous o t h e r s p r o v i d e s t r o n g consensus, one other p r o v i d e s l i t t l e consensus, and the m i n o r i t y p o s i t i o n i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a d i s t i n c t l a c k of consensus (a negative consensus p o s i t i o n ) . And the main e f f e c t f o r norm extremi t y on c o n f o r m i t y may simply r e f l e c t the i dea t h a t the more you ask f o r , the more you get (see Campbell e t a l . , 1986 f o r a r e p l i c a t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n ) . The most i n t r i g u i n g main e f f e c t on c o n f o r m i t y was t h a t of a t t e n t i o n . Higher a t t e n t i o n g e n e r a l l y i n c r e a s e d c o n f o r m i t y ; furthermore, the e f f e c t of a t t e n t i o n was not r e l i a b l y a f f e c t e d by norm extremi t y or f a c t i o n s i z e . T h i s r e s u l t a l s o seems reasonable i f v a l u e judgments r e f l e c t the predominance of i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e . Regardless of norm e x t r e m i t y ( d e v i a t i o n from the average response of the p r e t e s t group), the advocated norm cannot be viewed as o b j e c t i v e l y i n c o r r e c t or wrong. When m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s were g i v e n time t o t h i n k about the s t i m u l i , they may have 56 attempted t o f i n d reasons t o agree and a p p a r e n t l y were a b l e t o do so. When m i n o r i t y and one-on-one s u b j e c t s were g i v e n time t o t h i n k about the s t i m u l i , they may have t r i e d t o v a l i d a t e t h e i r own and other(s) ' judgments, but were no n e t h e l e s s unable t o deny t h a t the o t h e r ( s ) ' r a t i n g s might r e p r e s e n t v a l i d judgments. Thus, a t t e n t i o n i n c r e a s e d c o n f o r m i t y i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s . R e c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus and P r i v a t e Acceptance I t was h y pothesized t h a t r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s i s one p s y c h o l o g i c a l mechanism mediating c o n f o r m i t y and t h a t i t a l s o f a c i l i t a t e s or allows f o r i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of the advocated norm. Therefore, p a t t e r n s of s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance are expected t o be i n t i m a t e l y connected and w i l l be d i s c u s s e d t o g e t h e r f o r t h a t reason. B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g the r e c o n s t r u a l data, i t s h o u l d be noted t h a t a l l r e c o n s t r u a l f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study must be t r e a t e d w i t h c a u t i o n . Because i t was i m p o s s i b l e t o measure s u b j e c t s ' c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s a t the time they gave t h e i r p u b l i c responses, i t i s u n c l e a r which came f i r s t , the c o n f o r m i t y judgment or the r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s . Although A l l e n and Wilder (1980) suggest t h a t r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s precedes and f a c i l i t a t e s c o n f o r m i t y t o the advocated norm, i t a l s o seems p o s s i b l e t h a t r e c o n s t r u a l may r e s u l t from subsequently see i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t 57 p r e s e n t s a p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t i m u l u s t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h one's p r e v i o u s (conforming) response t o t h a t s t i m u l u s . Thus, s u b j e c t s may endorse an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the s t i m u l u s t h a t was not present a t the time they conformed. Research by G r i f f i n and Buehler (1990) suggests t h a t such p o s t - c o n f o r m i t y r e c o n s t r u a l does occur. S i m i l a r r e a s o n i n g a l s o a p p l i e s t o the measure of * p r i v a t e acceptance. A c o n s i s t e n c y motive may produce apparent p r i v a t e acceptance (congruence between p u b l i c and p r i v a t e responses) among s u b j e c t s who d i d not p r i v a t e l y agree a t the time they gave t h e i r p u b l i c response. Because the p r i v a t e measure used i n t h i s study was c o l l e c t e d soon a f t e r the p u b l i c t r i a l s and c o n s i s t e d of p r e c i s e l y the same s t i m u l i and response s c a l e used i n the p u b l i c t r i a l s , i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o such c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t s . Chaiken and Stangor (1987) note two mechanisms t h a t may produce t h i s c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t i n c o n f o r m i t y r e s e a r c h : im p r e s s i o n management (the d e s i r e t o appear p u b l i c l y c o n s i s t e n t i n the eyes of the experimenter) and dissonance r e d u c t i o n (see a l s o Higgins & McCann, 1984) . R e c o n s t r u a l of the Stimulus. Having c o n s i d e r e d the above c a u t i o n s , i t i s f i r s t important t o note t h a t s u b j e c t s g e n e r a l l y showed more stimulus r e c o n s t r u a l on the t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h - a t t e n t i o n i n the p u b l i c t r i a l s . Because a t t e n t i o n was manipulated i n the p u b l i c t r i a l s , but not when the c o n s t r u a l (or p r i v a t e acceptance) measure was 58 taken, t h i s outcome i m p l i e s t h a t , a t l e a s t t o some exten t , the c o n s t r u a l measure taps a process t h a t o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the i n f l u e n c e attempt i t s e l f . However, a ma r g i n a l F a c t i o n S i z e X A t t e n t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s was l e s s t r u e f o r m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s than f o r one-on-one or m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s . M a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed e s s e n t i a l l y the same amount of s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l under both h i g h and low a t t e n t i o n . Chaiken and Stangor (1987) note t h a t " a t l e a s t minimal l e v e l s of a t t e n t i o n ... would seem necessary p r e c o n d i t i o n s f o r c o g n i t i v e a p p r a i s a l and e l a b o r a t i o n " (p. 597). I t can t h e r e f o r e be assumed t h a t i n the p r e s e n t study, m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s d i d not have enough time t o have r e c o n s t r u e d the s t i m u l u s on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n p u b l i c t r i a l s — an assumption t h a t i s supported by the f a c t t h a t m i n o r i t y and one-on-one s u b j e c t s d i d not r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s on the low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . Given t h a t m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s e x h i b i t e d s u b s t a n t i a l amounts of p u b l i c conformity, even on the low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , the s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n and dissonance r e d u c t i o n motives (d i s c u s s e d above) should have been s t r o n g e s t f o r them. Thus, i t seems p l a u s i b l e t h a t m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d l o w - a t t e n t i o n s t i m u l i a f t e r they had a l r e a d y conformed i n order t o j u s t i f y t h e i r e a r l i e r responses. P r i v a t e Acceptance. I f r e c o n s t r u a l of the s t i m u l u s p r o v i d e s s u b j e c t s with a c c e p t a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n a l reasons t o 59 conform, i t should f a c i l i t a t e i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f the norm. That i s , s u b j e c t s should demonstrate h i g h e r l e v e l s o f p r i v a t e acceptance i n those c o n d i t i o n s i n which they appeared t o r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s r e c e i v e d g e n e r a l support from the data. M i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d o n l y under h i g h - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s and showed p r i v a t e acceptance o n l y under h i g h - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s (they showed both negative r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e r e a c t a n c e under l o w - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s ) . One-on-one s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d m a r g i n a l l y more under h i g h - than l o w - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s and showed s l i g h t l y more p r i v a t e acceptance under h i g h - than l o w - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s (though the d i f f e r e n c e d i d not approach s i g n i f i c a n c e ) . M a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed e s s e n t i a l l y the same amount of r e c o n s t r u a l under h i g h - and l o w - a t t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , and t h e i r p r i v a t e acceptance d i d not d i f f e r between these c o n d i t i o n s e i t h e r . Thus, s u b j e c t s exposed t o a m a j o r i t y appeared t o e x h i b i t a h i g h degree of p r i v a t e acceptance of the m a j o r i t y p o s i t i o n even when they were not g i v e n time t o t h i n k about the s t i m u l u s . T h i s s i t u a t i o n suggests again t h a t among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s c o n s i s t e n c y or dissonance p r o c e s s e s were o p e r a t i n g a f t e r the p u b l i c t r i a l s and a f f e c t i n g t h e i r subsequent r e c o n s t r u a l s . In t h i s case the r e s u l t was the p r o d u c t i o n of apparent p r i v a t e acceptance i n m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s even under those c o n d i t i o n s i n which they were not 60 a b l e t o r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s a t the time t h a t they p u b l i c l y conformed. Two Opposing Viewpoints: M o s c o v i c i vs Campbell S e v e r a l dependent measures were used t o the t e s t the opposing t h e o r i e s of M o s c o v i c i (1980; M o s c o v i c i & Personnaz, 1980) and Campbell (Campbell & F a i r e y , 1989; Campbell e t a l . , 1986). A c c o r d i n g t o M o s c o v i c i (see a l s o Nemeth, 1986), disagreement from a c o n s i s t e n t m i n o r i t y w i l l t r i g g e r a v a l i d a t i o n process i n which the v a l i d i t y of the c o n t r a d i c t i n g o p i n i o n s i s assessed by a c l o s e examination of the i s s u e (stimulus) i n q u e s t i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , a person exposed t o a m i n o r i t y i s motivated t o process the i n f o r m a t i o n a c t i v e l y by c o n s i d e r i n g arguments and counterarguments (e.g., v a r i o u s c o n s t r u a l s of the s t i m u l u s ) . The r e s u l t of t h i s a c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g i s l i k e l y t o be long-term, g e n e r a l i z e d a t t i t u d e change which may not be expressed i n p u b l i c responses due t o a d e s i r e t o a v o i d b e i n g a s s o c i a t e d with the d e v i a n t m i n o r i t y . In c o n t r a s t , disagreement from a m a j o r i t y t r i g g e r s a comparison p r o c e s s i n which the person simply compares the c o n t r a d i c t i n g o p i n i o n s w i t h each other without f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r i n g the i s s u e a t hand and without g e n e r a t i n g arguments and counterarguments. The r e s u l t w i l l be p u b l i c agreement w i t h 61 the m a j o r i t y which i s not accompanied by any i n t e r n a l i z e d a t t i t u d e change. In c o n t r a s t t o M o s c o v i c i ' s p o s i t i o n , Campbell proposes t h a t m i n o r i t i e s and m a j o r i t i e s w i l l both cause people t o examine the i s s u e a t hand and t o generate arguments and counterarguments, but f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons. Campbell would agree w i t h M o s c o v i c i t h a t s u b j e c t s exposed t o a m i n o r i t y undertake a v a l i d a t i o n process. However, she would suggest t h a t r a t h e r than i g n o r i n g the i s s u e a t hand, people exposed t o a m a j o r i t y w i l l look t o the sti m u l u s i n an attempt t o f i n d v a l i d i n f o r m a t i o n a l reasons t o agree w i t h the m a j o r i t y . The r e s u l t i s t h a t when the advocated norm i s p o s s i b l y v a l i d (as I have suggested i t may always be wit h v a l u e judgments) both m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s are l i k e l y t o c o n s i d e r v a r i o u s c o n s t r u a l s of the stim u l u s , and both are l i k e l y t o show i n t e r n a l i z e d a t t i t u d e change. The r e s u l t s f o r the m i n o r i t y c o n d i t i o n were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the t h e o r i e s of both M o s c o v i c i and Campbell i n t h a t m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed more sti m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l and more p r i v a t e acceptance on t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the h i g h -a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s (when they had time t o a c t i v e l y t h i n k about the i s s u e a t hand) than on t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the low-a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . I t i s on the p r e d i c t i o n s f o r m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s t h a t M o s c o v i c i and Campbell d i v e r g e , and the data from the m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s does not p r o v i d e u n e q u i v o c a l support f o r 62 e i t h e r viewpoint. Contrary t o what M o s c o v i c i would expect, a l l e x perimental s u b j e c t s showed more c o n f o r m i t y on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . M o s c o v i c i would not expect t h i s u n q u a l i f i e d main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n s i n c e he would expect t h a t a t t e n t i o n would not a f f e c t the amount of c o n f o r m i t y shown by m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s . A l s o i n o p p o s i t i o n t o M o s c o v i c i ' s t h e o r y i s the f i n d i n g t h a t m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed a r e l i a b l e amount of p r i v a t e acceptance. M o s c o v i c i would not expect m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s t o show any p r i v a t e acceptance. In M o s c o v i c i ' s defense, however, s i n c e the m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s demonstrated a l a r g e amount of conformity, c o n s i s t e n c y mechanisms (e.g., i m p r e s s i o n management, dissonance r e d u c t i o n ) c o u l d have l e d t o l a r g e p r i v a t e acceptance scores among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s who d i d not a c t u a l l y r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s or i n f o r m a t i o n a l l y accept the norm a t the time t h a t they gave t h e i r p u b l i c responses. F i n a l l y , the r e c o n s t r u a l data i s somewhat i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h both Campbell's and M o s c o v i c i ' s theory i n t h a t n e i t h e r m i n o r i t y nor m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s showed a r e l i a b l e amount of s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l . And c o n t r a r y t o what M o s c o v i c i would expect, m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s d i d not show any more s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l than the m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s . Although one might wish t o conclude t h a t stimulus r e c o n s t r u a l d i d not p l a y a p a r t i n the i n f l u e n c e process i n t h i s study, the s u b s t a n t i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s between stimulus r e c o n s t r u a l and both p u b l i c 63 and p r i v a t e i n f l u e n c e seem t o a t t e s t t o the n o t i o n t h a t s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l was, i n f a c t , l i n k e d w i t h the i n f l u e n c e p r o c e s s . However, i t i s u n c l e a r whether, and f o r whom, s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l was pre c e d i n g p u b l i c conformity. I f s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l preceded conformity, i t would be expected t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s between r e c o n s t r u a l and p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n f l u e n c e would be lower on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s s i n c e s u b j e c t s d i d not have enough time t o r e c o n s t r u e b e f o r e p u b l i c l y responding on these t r i a l s . However, the c o r r e l a t i o n s between r e c o n s t r u a l and the two measures of i n f l u e n c e d i d not d i f f e r a c c o r d i n g t o a t t e n t i o n . T h i s may suggest t h a t r e c o n s t r u a l took p l a c e subsequent t o r a t h e r than p r i o r t o p u b l i c responding as a means of j u s t i f y i n g conforming p u b l i c responses. Such an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s of G r i f f i n and Buehler (1990). However, G r i f f i n and Buehler (1990) i n v e s t i g a t e d r e c o n s t r u a l o n l y i n a m a j o r i t y i n f l u e n c e c o n t e x t , and the i d e a t h a t s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d as a way t o j u s t i f y p r i o r conforming p u b l i c responses does not e x p l a i n why m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d j u s t as much as other e x p e r i m e n t a l s u b j e c t s even though m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s d i d not conform and, t h e r e f o r e , had no need t o j u s t i f y t h e i r p u b l i c responses. I t c o u l d be t h a t o n l y the m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d p r i o r t o responding p u b l i c l y , w h i l e m a j o r i t y and one-on-one 64 s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e d subsequent t o g i v i n g t h e i r p u b l i c responses. T h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h M o s c o v i c i ' s t h e o r y . In any case, i t appears t h a t the r e c o n s t r u a l measure used i n t h i s study was not s e n s i t i v e enough t o d e t e c t r e l i a b l e group d i f f e r e n c e s , and i t i s u n c l e a r what e x a c t l y the instrument was measuring ( r e c o n s t r u a l t h a t o c c u r r e d a t the time the p u b l i c response was g i v e n or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s h i f t s t h a t o c c u r r e d a f t e r the p r i v a t e response was g i v e n ) . Campbell would expect t h a t among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s , c o n f o r m i t y , r e c o n s t r u a l , and p r i v a t e acceptance would a l l be more pronounced on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s than on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . The r e s u l t s showed t h i s p r e d i c t i o n t o be t r u e o n l y f o r conformity. The f a i l u r e t o a c h i e v e the expected e f f e c t of a t t e n t i o n on r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance does not c l e a r l y r e f u t e Campbell's t h e o r y . F i r s t , t h e r e was a main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n on the r e c o n s t r u a l s c o r e s , and the A t t e n t i o n X S o c i a l P r e s s u r e i n t e r a c t i o n was o n l y marginal r e f l e c t i n g the f a c t t h a t i n g e n e r a l , s u b j e c t s i n a l l f a c t i o n - s i z e c o n d i t i o n s r e c o n s t r u e d more on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s than on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . Second, the f a c t t h a t a t t e n t i o n d i d have an e f f e c t on c o n f o r m i t y s c o r e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s were doing something d i f f e r e n t on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s than on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the 65 dissonance r e d u c t i o n and impression management motives d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r can e x p l a i n why the g r e a t e r c o n f o r m i t y shown by m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s on the t r a i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s was not r e f l e c t e d i n g r e a t e r r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance on those t r a i t s . S i n c e m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s demonstrated a s u b s t a n t i a l , amount of c o n f o r m i t y , even on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s ( t r i a l s i n which they were not g i v e n enough time t o r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l u s b e f o r e g i v i n g t h e i r p u b l i c response), i t seems t h a t dissonance or impression management f a c t o r s may have caused them t o l a t e r endorse i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and p r i v a t e r a t i n g s of the l o w - a t t e n t i o n s t i m u l i t h a t were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p u b l i c r a t i n g s they had g i v e n . Thus, m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s may have r e c o n s t r u e d the stimulus and i n t e r n a l i z e d the norm p r i o r t o t h e i r p u b l i c responding on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , but subsequent t o t h e i r p u b l i c responding on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , the d e s i g n of the p r e s e n t study does not allow one t o t e s t t h i s s p e c u l a t i o n . Although impression management and dissonance motives may have a c t e d t o mask any a t t e n t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance among m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s , these motives would not apply t o m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s . Because m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s d i d not p u b l i c l y conform, t h e r e was no p u b l i c behavior t h a t r e q u i r e d dissonance r e d u c t i o n or e f f o r t s t o appear c o n s i s t e n t . 66 In summary, the data from t h i s study do not p r o v i d e c l e a r support f o r e i t h e r M o s c o v i c i or Campbell's p o s i t i o n . The unsupported p r e d i c t i o n s f o r r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance on the p a r t of the m a j o r i t y can be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of impression management and dissonance r e d u c t i o n motives. T h i s leaves the conformity p r e d i c t i o n s , and here the data p r o v i d e b e t t e r support f o r Campbell's p o s i t i o n than f o r M o s c o v i c i ' s p o s i t i o n . F a c t i o n S i z e and A t t e n t i o n t o the Stimulus S e v e r a l dependent measures were used t o t e s t the i d e a t h a t f a c t i o n s i z e a f f e c t s what people look f o r when they a t t e n d t o c o n f o r m i t y s t i m u l i . None of the t e s t s on these dependent measures pr o v i d e d unequivocal support f o r the h y p o t h e s i s . However, none of the t e s t s c l e a r l y r e f u t e d the h y p o t h e s i s e i t h e r , and the p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s was e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e g i v e n the assumption t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e mechanisms are e s p e c i a l l y important when v a l u e judgments are i n v o l v e d . The r e s u l t s suggest some m o d i f i c a t i o n s t o the present experiment which might p r o v i d e l e s s ambiguous evidence. F i r s t , i t seems l i k e l y t h a t s u b j e c t s who conformed without spontaneously r e c o n s t r u i n g the s t i m u l u s were l a t e r prompted t o r e c o n s t r u e by the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . And these a f t e r - t h e - f a c t r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s would have l e d 67 s u b j e c t s t o subsequently demonstrate p r i v a t e acceptance of the norm. Th e r e f o r e , i t would be i n f o r m a t i v e t o conduct a study i n which the order of p r e s e n t a t i o n of the p r i v a t e acceptance measure and the r e c o n s t r u a l measure i s manipulated. Another p o s s i b i l i t y along these l i n e s would be t o conduct a study i n which h a l f of the s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e o n l y the p r i v a t e acceptance measure, and the o t h e r h a l f r e c e i v e o n l y the r e c o n s t r u a l measure. Such a d e s i g n would e l i m i n a t e any p o s s i b l e c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t s between the r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance measures. A f u r t h e r step may be t o make the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e an open-ended instrument. When s u b j e c t s are p r o v i d e d w i t h experimenter-generated r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o t e l l whether they spontaneously came up w i t h those r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . With an open-ended instrument, we would know t h a t s u b j e c t s r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s were t h e i r own, although the t i m i n g of the r e c o n s t r u a l would s t i l l be i n q u e s t i o n . Coding such an instrument would, of course, be d i f f i c u l t . T h i r d , norm extremi t y d i d not p l a y a v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g r o l e i n the p r e s e n t study. I t was proposed t h a t t h i s c i rcumstance may have occurred because norm e x t r e m i t y does not have the same conceptual s t a t u s with v a l u e judgments as i t has w i t h f a c t u a l judgments. That i s , i t may be t h a t w i t h f a c t u a l judgments, as the norm becomes more extreme i t moves from b e i n g p o s s i b l y c o r r e c t t o being o b j e c t i v e l y wrong, but 68 t h a t w i t h v a l u e judgments the norm can never i n f a c t be "wrong*1. The l i n k s between n o r m a t i v e / i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e and s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l might be c l a r i f i e d i f s t i m u l i c o u l d be found t h a t were both s u s c e p t i b l e t o r e c o n s t r u a l ( i . e . , s u b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i ) and s u s c e p t i b l e t o a more dramatic m a n i p u l a t i o n of norm ex t r e m i t y ( i . e . , have a boundary p a s t which a more extreme norm can a c t u a l l y be c o n s i d e r e d wrong). Fourth, I have suggested t h a t s u b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i render i n f o r m a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e mechanisms more important than normative mechanisms r e g a r d l e s s of the a t t e n t i o n and norm-e x t r e m i t y c o n d i t i o n s . In the i n t e r e s t of comparing c o n f o r m i t y p rocesses with s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i , i t would be i n f o r m a t i v e t o conduct a c o n f o r m i t y study i n which the same s t i m u l i c o u l d be rendered e i t h e r s u b j e c t i v e or o b j e c t i v e . Moral dilemmas or r i s k y s h i f t s t i m u l i might be conducive t o such a m a n i p u l a t i o n and a l l o w the experimenter t o inform s u b j e c t s t h a t t h e r e e i t h e r i s or i s not an o b j e c t i v e l y s u p e r i o r response. F i f t h , i t was suggested t h a t s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l might occur p r i o r t o p u b l i c responding o n l y f o r m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s (with l a r g e r - f a c t i o n s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u i n g subsequent t o conforming). T h i s idea c o u l d be t e s t e d i n a study t h a t uses both m a j o r i t y - and m i n o r i t y - i n f l u e n c e c o n d i t i o n s and has h a l f of the s u b j e c t s g i v e t h e i r s t i m u l u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s p r i o r t o t h e i r p u b l i c responses and the o t h e r h a l f g i v e 69 t h e i r s t i m u l u s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s subsequent t o t h e i r p u b l i c responses. Summary The most i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g from the p r e s e n t study was the main e f f e c t of a t t e n t i o n on conformity; c o n f o r m i t y i n c r e a s e d w i t h a t t e n t i o n f o r a l l f a c t i o n s i z e groups. T h i s would suggest t h a t s u b j e c t s were doing something on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s t h a t they d i d not have time t o do on the l o w - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s . The r e s u l t s from the r e c o n s t r u a l and p r i v a t e acceptance measures d i d not p r o v i d e any c l e a r p i c t u r e of what e x a c t l y i t was t h a t s u b j e c t s were doing on the h i g h - a t t e n t i o n t r i a l s , and whether what they were doing v a r i e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r f a c t i o n - s i z e c o n d i t i o n . However, t h i s study d i d r a i s e a number of c o n c e p t u a l q u e s t i o n s and suggest a number of avenues f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . T h i s i s the f i r s t study t o use s u b j e c t i v e s t i m u l i i n a paradigm t h a t manipulates a t t e n t i o n , and i t was a l s o the f i r s t study t o f i n d a main e f f e c t f o r a t t e n t i o n on c o n f o r m i t y . T h i s suggests, f i r s t of a l l , t h a t i t i s worthwhile t o continue s t u d y i n g how a t t e n t i o n o p erates i n a c o n f o r m i t y context. Second, i t suggests t h a t t h e r e are some important d i f f e r e n c e s between f a c t u a l s t i m u l i and v a l u e -laden s t i m u l i t h a t warrant f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t was suggested here (and a l s o by Kaplan, 1987) t h a t f a c t u a l 70 judgments and v a l u e judgments may d i f f e r i n terms of which i n f l u e n c e mechanism (normative or i n f o r m a t i o n a l ) i s predominant. A c o n t i n u i n g c o n t r o v e r s y i n the s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e l i t e r a t u r e concerns whether m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e c o n s t i t u t e q u a n t i t a t i v e l y or q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t phenomena. As d e s c r i b e d above, M o s c o v i c i (1980) has argued t h a t m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e are mediated by q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t processes. In c o n t r a s t , Latane and Wolf (1981) and Tanford and Penrod (1984) have argued t h a t m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e r e p r e s e n t the same p s y c h o l o g i c a l process, with i n f l u e n c e i n both s i t u a t i o n s depending p r i m a r i l y on f a c t i o n s i z e . The q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h i s paper concerning the t i m i n g of s t i m u l u s r e c o n s t r u a l have obvious i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s i n g l e p r o c e s s / d u a l p r o c e s s c o n t r o v e r s y . A f i n d i n g t h a t m i n o r i t y and m a j o r i t y s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l i a t d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s i n time r e l a t i v e t o g i v i n g t h e i r p u b l i c responses would support a d u a l p r o c e s s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . However, a f i n d i n g t h a t m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y s u b j e c t s r e c o n s t r u e the s t i m u l i a t the same p o i n t i n time would not be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e i t h e r a s i n g l e - or d u a l - p r o c e s s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In c o n c l u s i o n , t h e r e i s s t i l l much e x c i t i n g work t o be done i n the e f f o r t t o uncover the p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s o p e r a t i v e i n m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e s e t t i n g s . 71 References A l l e n , V. L. (1965). S i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s i n c o n f o r m i t y . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l  psychology ( V o l . 2, pp.133-176). New York: Academic P r e s s . A l l e n , V. L. (1975). S o c i a l support f o r nonconformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental and s o c i a l  psychology ( V o l . 8, pp. 1-43). New York: Academic P r e s s . A l l e n , V. L., & Wilder, D. A. (1980). Impact of group consensus and s o c i a l support on s t i m u l u s meaning: M e d i a t i o n of conformity by c o g n i t i v e r e s t r u c t u r i n g . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 39, 1116-1124. Asch, S. E. (1940). S t u d i e s i n the p r i n c i p l e s of judgments and a t t i t u d e s : I I . Determination of judgments by group and by ego standards. J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Psychology. 12., 433-465. Asch, S. E. (1948). The d o c t r i n e of s u g g e s t i o n , p r e s t i g e , and i m i t a t i o n i n s o c i a l psychology. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 55. 250-276. Asch, S. E. (1952). S o c i a l psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Asch, S. E. (1956). S t u d i e s of independence and submission t o group p r e s s u r e : I. A m i n o r i t y of one a g a i n s t a unanimous m a j o r i t y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs. 70, No. 9, (Whole No. 417). Campbell, J . D. (1990). A t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s and norm e x t r e m i t y i n the context of m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e . Paper i n p r e p a r a t i o n . Campbell, J . D., & F a i r e y , P. J . (1989). I n f o r m a t i o n a l and normative r o u t e s t o conformity: The e f f e c t of f a c t i o n s i z e as a f u n c t i o n of norm extrem i t y and a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 57. 457-468. Campbell, J . D., Tesser, A., & F a i r e y , P. J . (1986). Conformity and a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s : Some temporal and c o n t e x t u a l dynamics. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology. 51, 315-324. 72 Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). A t t i t u d e s and a t t i t u d e change. Annual Review of Psychology. 38, 575-630. Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and i n f o r m a t i o n a l s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e upon i n d i v i d u a l judgement. J o u r n a l of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 51, 629-636. Gerard, H. B., & R o t t e r , G. S. (1961). Time p e r s p e c t i v e , c o n s i s t e n c y of a t t i t u d e and s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e . J o u r n a l of  Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology. 62., 565-572. G r i f f i n , D., & Buehler, R. (1990). The u t i l i t y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n conformity and d i s s e n t . Unpublished manuscript. H i g g i n s , E. T., & McCann, C. D. (1984). S o c i a l encoding and subsequent a t t i t u d e s , impressions, and memory: "Context-d r i v e n " and m o t i v a t i o n a l aspects of p r o c e s s i n g . J o u r n a l  of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 47, 26-39. Insko, C. A., Smith, R. H., A l i c k e , M. D., Wade, J . , & T a y l o r , S. (1985). Conformity and group s i z e : The concern w i t h b e ing r i g h t and the concern w i t h being l i k e d . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology B u l l e t i n . 11, 41-50. Kaplan, M. F. (1989). Task, s i t u a t i o n a l , and p e r s o n a l determinants of i n f l u e n c e processes i n group d e c i s i o n making. Advances i n Group Processes. 6, 87-105. K e l l e y , H. H. (1971). A t t r i b u t i o n i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. K e l l e y , R. E. N i s b e t t , S. V a l i n s , & B. Weiner (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g  the causes of behavior (pp. 1-26). New York: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s . K e l l e y , H. H., & Miche l a , J . L. (1980). A t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h . Annual Review of Psychology. 31. 457-501. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n : Three processes of a t t i t u d e change. J o u r n a l of C o n f l i c t R e s o l u t i o n . 2, 51-60. Latane, B., & Wolf, S. (1981). The s o c i a l impact of m a j o r i t i e s and m i n o r i t i e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 88, 438-453. L e v i n e , J . M. (1980). Reaction t o o p i n i o n deviance i n s m a l l groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group  i n f l u e n c e (pp. 375-429). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 73 Maass, A., & C l a r k , R. D. I I I . (1984). Hidden impact of m i n o r i t i e s : F i f t e e n years of m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e r e s e a r c h . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 95, 428-450. Maass, A., West, S. G., & C i a l d i n i , R. B. (1987). M i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e and c o n v e r s i o n . In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group  p r o c e s s e s : Review of p e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l psychology ( V o l . 8, pp. 55-79). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. MacNeil, M., & S h e r i f , M. (1976). Norm change over s u b j e c t g e n e r a t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n of a r b i t r a r i n e s s of p r e s c r i b e d norms. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 34., 762-773. M o s c o v i c i , S. (1980). Toward a theory of c o n v e r s i o n b e h a v i o r . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n e x p e r i m e n t a l  s o c i a l psychology. ( V o l . 13, pp. 209-239). New York: Academic Press. M o s c o v i c i , S., Lage, E., & Naffrechoux, M. (1969). I n f l u e n c e of a c o n s i s t e n t m i n o r i t y on the responses of a m a j o r i t y i n a c o l o r p e r c e p t i o n task. Sociometry. 32., 365-379. M o s c o v i c i , S., & Personnaz, B. (1980). S t u d i e s i n s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e . V: M i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e and c o n v e r s i o n b e h a v i o r i n a p e r c e p t u a l t a s k . J o u r n a l of Experimental S o c i a l  Psychology. 16, 270-282. Mugny, G. (1982). The power of m i n o r i t i e s . London: Academic P r e s s . Nemeth, C. (1986). D i f f e r e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s of m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 93., 23-32. P a i c h e l e r , G. (1976). Norms and a t t i t u d e change: I. P o l a r i z a t i o n and s t y l e s of behavior. European J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l Psychology. 6, 405-427. P a i c h e l e r , G. (1977). Norms and a t t i t u d e change: I I . The phenomenon of b i p o l a r i z a t i o n . European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  Psychology. 7, 5-14. S h e r i f , M. (1935). The Psychology of S o c i a l Norms. New York: Harper & Row. Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). S o c i a l i n f l u e n c e model: A formal i n t e g r a t i o n of r e s e a r c h on m a j o r i t y and m i n o r i t y i n f l u e n c e processes. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 95, 189-225. 74 T e s s e r , A., Campbell, J . , & M i c k l e r , S. (1983). The r o l e of s o c i a l p r e s s u r e , a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s , and s e l f -doubt i n conformity. European J o u r n a l of S o c i a l  Psychology. 13, 217-234. Tuddenham, R. D. (1961). The i n f l u e n c e upon judgement of the apparent d i s c r e p a n c y between s e l f and o t h e r s . J o u r n a l of  S o c i a l Psychology. 53, 69-79. W i l d e r , D. A. (1977). P e r c e p t i o n of groups, s i z e of o p p o s i t i o n , and s o c i a l i n f l u e n c e . J o u r n a l of Experimental  S o c i a l Psychology. 13, 253-268. Wi l d e r , D. A. (1978a). Homogeneity of j u r o r s : The m a j o r i t y ' s i n f l u e n c e depends upon t h e i r p e r c e i v e d independence. Law  and Human Behavior. 2, 363-376. Wild e r , D. A. (1978b). P e r c e i v i n g persons as a group: E f f e c t s on a t t r i b u t i o n s of c a u s a l i t y and b e l i e f s . S o c i a l  Psychology. 41, 13-23. 75 APPENDIX A INTERPRETATION QUESTIONNAIRE Below are the 18 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s you r a t e d f o r p o s i t i v i t y . P l e a s e i n d i c a t e the meaning you att a c h e d t o each t r a i t a d j e c t i v e when you r a t e d i t f o r p o s i t i v i t y by c i r c l i n g one number on the n i n e - p o i n t s c a l e p r o v i d e d . Each s c a l e has been anchored a t e i t h e r end by two d i f f e r e n t p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e being c o n s i d e r e d . Intermediate numbers on the response s c a l e i n d i c a t e a meaning f o r the t r a i t a d j e c t i v e which f a l l s somewhere between the two anchorpoint meanings. 1. Lazy A person who i s r e l a x e d A person who i s an i d l e d o-nothing 2. Bossy A person who has l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s A person who pushes o t h e r people around A c c u r a t e A person who i s c o r r e c t , p r e c i s e and t r u t h f u l A person who i s compulsive about d e t a i l 4. Q u e s t i o n i n g A person who does not b e l i e v e a n y t h i n g o t h e r people say An i n q u i s i t i v e , i n t e l l e c t u a l person 5. P i c k y A person who i s f u s s y and f i n i c k y A person who i s p a r t i c u l a r and d i s c e r n i n g 76 6. Concise A person who 1 2 3 4 g e t s t o the p o i n t and i s not longwinded 5 6 7 8 9 A person who i s c u r t and abrupt 7. C u r i o u s A busybody who p r i e s i n t o o t h e r people's b u s i n e s s An i n q u i s i t i v e person who seeks new knowledge and u n d e r s t a n d i n g 8. Easygoing A happy-go-l u c k y person who t a k e s t h i n g s i n t h e i r s t r i d e A wishy-washy person who does not f e e l s t r o n g l y about a n y t h i n g 9. Moody A peron who i s c o n s t a n t l y i n a bad mood 10. E f f i c i e n t A p r o d u c t i v e person who e f f e c t i v e l y uses time A peron who i s e m o t i o n a l l y e x p r e s s i v e 8 9 A r o b o t - l i k e person who i s t a s k - o r i e n t e d t o the p o i n t of b e i n g u n s o c i a b l e 11. L o g i c a l A person who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A person who d e a l s o n l y i s r a t i o n a l w i t h f a c t s and i g n o r e s t h e i r f e e l i n g s and i n t u i t i o n s 77 12. C h i l d i s h A peron who 1 2 3 4 i s young a t h e a r t 5 6 7 8 9 A person who i s immature 13. Observant A nosy person who keeps an eye on everyone e l s e ' s b u s i n e s s A person who i s a l e r t and n o t i c e s i n t e r e s t i n g d e t a i l s 14. P a s s i o n a t e A person who f e e l s deeply and s t r o n g l y about t h i n g s A person who i s o v eremotional and g e t s c a r r i e d away by t h e i r f e e l i n g s 15. Persevering; A determined 1 2 3 4 person who does not e a s i l y g i v e up 5 6 7 8 9 A person who doesn't know when t o q u i t 16. Rowdy A person who i s d i s r u p t i v e and u n r u l y A person who i s h i g h - s p i r i t e d and exuberant 17. S e l f - c o n f i d e n t A p o i s e d , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 An e g o t i s t i c a l , s e l f - a s s u r e d cocky person person 78 18. T r u s t i n g A person who 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A person who i s g u l l i b l e b e l i e v e s i n and and has f a i t h c r e d u l o u s i n o t h e r s APPENDIX B TRAIT RATINGS P l e a s e r a t e the p o s i t i v i t y of the f o l l o w i n g t r a i t s on the s c a l e g i v e n . 1. Lazy 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 2. Bossy 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 3. A c c u r a t e 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 4. Q u e s t i o n i n g 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 5. P i c k y 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 6. Concise 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 7. C u r i o u s 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 8. Easygoing 1 2 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 9. Moody 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 10. E f f i c i e n t 1 2 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 11. L o g i c a l 1 2 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 12. C h i l d i s h 1 2 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 13. Observant 1 2 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 14. P a s s i o n a t e 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 15. P e r s e v e r i n g 1 2 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 9 Very P o s i t i v e 16. Rowdy 1 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 8 9 Very P o s i t i v e 17. S e l f - c o n f i d e n t 1 2 3 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 8 9 Very P o s i t i v e 18. T r u s t i n g 1 2 Very Negative 4 5 6 N e u t r a l 8 9 Very P o s i t i v e 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098325/manifest

Comment

Related Items