Breaking boundaries: The effects of counter-stereotypical sources on ingroup persuasion and outgroup dissuasion.

People tend to align their policy attitudes with the stereotypical attitudes of their political group (e.g., conservatives supporting gun rights, liberals supporting abortion rights). However, ingroups sometimes adopt positions that contradict such stereotypes (e.g., some liberals endorse gun rights, some conservatives endorse abortion rights). How does learning about these counter-stereotypical endorsements influence people's attitudes toward the policy? Do such endorsements persuade the ingroups to support the policy, dissuade outgroups, or both? In the latter case, are these effects symmetric or asymmetric in magnitude? Five experiments conducted in a highly polarized society (Brazil; N = 3,380) demonstrate that policy endorsements made from counter-stereotypical sources (i.e., individuals who support a policy that most of their ingroups are perceived to oppose) systematically persuade the source's ingroups and, to a lesser extent, dissuade outgroups-a pattern that reduces intergroup differences in policy attitudes. This phenomenon generalizes across a variety of policies (e.g., abortion, gun rights, welfare programs) and types of endorsers (e.g., political elites, regular citizens). Attitude change occurs even if beliefs about the societal benefits of the policy remain relatively stable but disappear when people are prompted to question the source's ingroup status. Source credibility, perceived ingroup norms, and perceived policy extremity help explain the persuasive effects of counter-stereotypical sources. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).