Differential effects of majority and minority influence on argumentation strategies

Confirmatory bias in argumentation—i.e., the tendency to generate arguments that support one’s own claims, rather than rebuttals that challenge alternative standpoints—is a widespread tendency that can be harmful to the quality of argumentation. In the present study we hypothesized that, depending on issue relevance to the targets, majority and minority sources of influence may differentially reduce this bias. Results provided partial support to the contention, showing that when the issue was of low relevance, participants exposed to the minority developed more rebuttals than participants exposed to the majority, whereas no difference between the impacts of the two sources emerged when the issue was of high relevance. Findings suggest that, in low-relevance circumstances, minority influence may exert beneficial effects on argumentation.