Since Moscovici's seminal work on minority influence (cf. Moscovici, 1976, 1985a, 1985b; Moscovici & Faucheux, 1972), a number of studies confirmed that both majorities and minorities can induce a certain amount of influence (see Chaiken & Stangor, 1987; De Dreu & De Vries, 2001; Maass & Clark, 1984; Moscovici, Mucchi-Faina, & Maass, 1994; Moscovici, Mugny, & Van Avermaet, 1985; PeÂrez & Mugny, 1993; Wood, Lundgren, Ouellette, Busceme, & Blackstone, 1994, for reviews). According to Moscovici (1980), when confronted with majority positions, targets focus on discrepancies between the majority's position and their own, and the influence results from their motivation to reduce such discrepancies (a comparison process). Conversely, when confronted with minorities, targets' attention is focused on the minority's position, and in¯uence results from the careful processing of the situation and the relevant information (a validation process). These distinct processes result in differences in the nature of influence: Majorities obtain more manifest influence (i.e., on immediate, focal or public measures) than latent influence (i.e., on delayed, indirect or private measures) in the form of compliance, while minorities obtain more latent than manifest influence (i.e., conversion). This is a crucial point because the distinction between levels of influence has received little attention in recent in¯uence approaches based on information processing.