Abstract

Three experiments were conducted to test two hypotheses on identity-relevant beliefs : (1) that individuals' beliefs relevant to their important group identities will resist more to persuasion than identity-irrelevant beliefs, and (2) that differential supports for initial beliefs from an ingroup and an outgroup(i.e., support from most of ingroup members and opposition from most of outgroup members) will bring about greater resistance to belief change than non-differential maximum supports(supports from most of ingroup and outgroup members), though the latter provides higher level of general social support than the former. Experiments 1 and 2 addressed Yale undergraduate students' major-relevant beliefs(science majors vs. humanities majors), and Experiment 3 dealt with their feminism-relevant beliefs(female feminists vs. male non-feminists). Computer presentation methods were used in all the three experiments : For each issue, subjects were first asked (1) to express their own initial belief, (2) to observe their ingroup's and outgroup's belief distributions and to read a communication attacking their initial belief, and finally (3) to express their own belief on the same issue again. The first hypothesis was supported by the results of Experiment 1, and the second by those of Experiment 2 and Experiment 3(female feminists' responses). In addition, it was revealed that ingroup support could predict belief resistance positively but outgroup support negatively. This implies that threat or attack(rather than support) from an outgroup might induce the resistance of identity-relevant beliefs to persuasion.