Majority Responses to Opinion Deviates

Using Moscovici 's model of social influence, this study views social influence as rooted in conflict and seeks to identify and examine the communicative behavior of the group's majority as they react to the arguments of an opinion deviate who argues against the prevailing majority view. Majority responses are examined in light of the deviate's gender, as well as changes in her or his substantive and linguistic communicative behavior. The study's results reveal that the opinion deviates exerted little influence, regardless of their gender or communicative behavior. In general, the majority 's deviate-directed verbalizations were characterized by cooperativeness, emotionality, and opinionatedness. Unlike the influence ratings, however, these content characteristics varied significantly, depending on the deviate's gender and his or her use of evidence and qualifying expressions. The deviates' inability to influence the majority may have been influenced by the particular discussion topic used in the investigation.

Majority Perceptions of Opinion Deviates’ Interpersonal Attractiveness

Employing Moscovici’s behavioral style model of social influence, this study viewed social influence as rooted in conflict and sought to determine the impact an opinion deviate’s use of evidence and linguistic style might have on majority opinion and perceptions. The study also added an external status characteristic to Moscovici’s model by examining the impact of the opinion deviate’s gender on measures of influence and interpersonal attractiveness. Findings revealed that opinion deviates exerted little influence on expressed majority opinions, regardless of how they communicated and regardless of their gender. However, using evidence to support arguments while employing few qualifying expressions (tag questions and disclaimers) appeared to increase an opinion deviate’s interpersonal attractiveness in the eyes of the majority. Predictions related to the deviate’s gender received mixed support. The potential gender bias of the discussion topic and its subsequent impact on the study’s findings were explored.