This research concerned attitude change towards a majority or minority position as a function of convergent and divergent message processing. Results of a 2 (majority/ minority support for persuasive arguments) Â 3(convergent/divergent/no-processing instructions) experiment showed that recipients identi®ed more with a majority rather than minority, and identi®cation was positively correlated with attitudes on the focal, but not the related issue. More importantly, results showed that in the no-processing condition, counter-attitudinal majority arguments produced more positive attitudes on the focal rather than related issue; minority arguments had no eects on either issue. A similar pattern emerged under convergent processing: majority support produced more positive attitudes on focal than related issues, while minority support had no eect on either issue. Divergent processing instructions, ®nally, produced more positive attitudes on the related issue than on the focal issue, especially in the case of minority support. Unexpectedly, majority arguments under divergent processing had no eect on focal or related attitudes whatsoever. Overall, results support the conclusion that majority arguments aect attitudes on focal issues more than on related issues because of convergent message processing, while minority arguments aect attitudes on related issues more than on focal issues because of divergent message processing and a desire to avoid identi®cation with the source.