Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny.

Two experiments addressed the issue of whether endorsement of a position by a numerical majority or a minority leads to greater scrutiny of the information presented in a persuasive message. In Exp 1, a counterattitudinal position was endorsed by a majority or a minority and was supported by strong or weak arguments. Argument quality had a larger impact on attitudes with majority than with minority endorsement. In Exp 2, a proattitudinal or a counterattitudinal message was endorsed by a majority or a minority and was supported by strong or weak arguments. When the source and message position were unexpected (i.e., majority-counter and minority-pro messages), argument quality had a larger impact on attitudes than when the source and message position were expected (i.e., majority-pro and minority-counter messages). Thus, either majority or minority endorsement can enhance message scrutiny if the source-position pairing is surprising. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.

In Exp I, 183 undergraduates read a persuasive message from a likable or unlikable communicator who presented 6 or 2 arguments on 1 of 2 topics. High involvement (HI) Ss anticipated discussing the message topic at a future experimental session, whereas low-involvement (LI) Ss anticipated discussing a different topic. For HI Ss, opinion change was significantly greater given 6 arguments but was unaffected by communicator likability. For LI Ss, opinion change was significantly greater given a likable communicator but was unaffected by the argument's manipulation. In Exp II with 80 similar Ss, HI Ss showed slightly greater opinion change when exposed to 5 arguments from an unlikable (vs 1 argument from a likable) communicator, whereas LI Ss exhibited significantly greater persuasion in response to 1 argument from a likable (vs 5 arguments from an unlikable) communicator. Findings support the idea that HI leads message recipients to employ a systematic information processing strategy in which message-based cognitions mediate persuasion, whereas LI leads recipients to use a heuristic processing strategy in which simple decision rules mediate persuasion. Support was also obtained for the hypothesis that content- vs source-mediated opinion change would result in greater persistence. (37 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view.

In Exp I 120 undergraduates viewed a videotape of 1 or 3 speakers presenting 1 or 3 arguments in favor of a counterattitudinal position. The 3-source/3-argument message produced significantly more persuasion than any of the other conditions, which did not differ from each other. It is suggested that each time a speaker appears, the recipient "gears up" to process the message and that if either speaker or argument is repeated, further thinking about the arguments is minimal. Exp II (30 Ss) excluded an alternative to this processing interpretation by showing that Ss exposed to the multiple-source/multiple-argument message did not infer that the pool of proproposal arguments was larger than that inferred by other Ss. In Exp III (100 Ss), Ss exposed to 3 compelling arguments purportedly produced by 3 different persons generated more positive thoughts and were more persuaded than Ss who read the same high quality arguments presumably generated by 1 person. However, Ss exposed to 3 weak arguments purportedly produced by 3 different persons generated more negative thoughts and were less persuaded than Ss who read the same low quality arguments attributed to 1 source. Overall, results indicate that increasing the number of sources of a message increases thinking about the message content. This increased thinking can result in either increased or decreased persuasion, depending on the cogency of the message arguments. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses.

Two experiments with 96 undergraduates tested the hypothesis that high issue involvement enhances thinking about the content of a persuasive communication. Exp I varied involvement and the direction of a message (pro- or counterattitudinal). Increasing involvement enhanced persuasion for the proattitudinal but reduced persuasion for the counterattitudinal advocacy. Exp II again varied involvement, but both messages took a counterattitudinal position. One message employed compelling arguments and elicited primarily favorable thoughts, whereas the other employed weak arguments and elicited primarily counterarguments. Increasing involvement enhanced persuasion for the strong message but reduced persuasion for the weak one. Together the experiments provide support for the view that high involvement with an issue enhances message processing and therefore can result in either increased or decreased acceptance. (43 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Information utility and the multiple source effect.

We report 3 experiments that are consistent with the view that multiple sources enhance message processing because of recipients' perceptions that information from multiple sources is more likely to be based on different perspectives and independent pools of knowledge and, thus, more worthy of diligent consideration. Specifically, in Experiment I we found that persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments was eliminated when the sources were said to have formed a committee rather than being independent. In Experiment 2, we found that the committee manipulation eliminated the persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments only when this information was available prior to argument exposure and not when it was provided after exposure. In Experiment 3, subjects were led to believe that the multiple sources who formed a committee were either very similar or dissimilar. When the committee was believed to include members with similar perspectives, the persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments was eliminated, but when the committee was believed to include members with dissimilar perspectives, the persuasive advantage of multiple sources was retained. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Happiness versus sadness as a determinant of thought confidence in persuasion: A self-validation analysis.

The present research introduces a new mechanism by which emotion can affect evaluation. On the basis of the self-validation hypothesis (R. E. Petty, P. Bri?ol, & Z. L. Tormala, see record 2002-12575-003), the authors predicted and found that emotion can influence evaluative judgments by affecting the confidence people have in their thoughts to a persuasive message. In each study, participants first read a strong or weak persuasive communication. After listing their thoughts about the message, participants were induced to feel happy or sad. Relative to sad participants, those put in a happy state reported more thought confidence. As a consequence, the effect of argument quality on attitudes was greater for happy than for sad participants. These self-validation effects generalized across different emotion inductions, different persuasion topics, and different measures of thought confidence. In one study, happy and sad conditions each differed from a neutral affect control. Most important, these metacognitive effects of emotion only occurred under high elaboration conditions. In contrast, individuals with relatively low motivation to think showed a main effect of emotion on attitudes, regardless of argument quality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Overt head movements and persuasion: A self-validation analysis.

The authors report 3 experiments that examine a new mechanism by which overt head movements can affect attitude change. In each experiment, participants were induced to either nod or to shake their heads while listening to a persuasive message. When the message arguments were strong, nodding produced more persuasion than shaking. When the arguments were weak, the reverse occurred. These effects were most pronounced when elaboration was high. These findings are consistent with the "self-validation" hypothesis that postulates that head movements either enhance (nodding) or undermine (shaking) confidence in one's thoughts about the message. In a 4th experiment, the authors extended this result to another overt behavior (writing with the dominant or nondominant hand) and a different attitude domain (self-esteem). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion.

Previous research on the persuasive impact of an overheard audience has yielded conflicting results. In this study, we attempted to understand such audience effects within the framework of the heuristic model of persuasion. Subjects listened to an audiotaped persuasive message that conveyed arguments of either high or low quality and that was responded to by either an enthusiastic or an unenthusiastic overheard audience. In addition, subject involvement (high vs. low) was varied. Consistent with predictions, the audience response cue influenced postmessage opinions only under low involvement; under high involvement, only argument quality affected persuasion. Analyses that took into account subjects' need for cognition supported the additional hypothesis that individuals lower in need for cognition would be more responsive to the audience manipulation under low involvement. Thought-listing data and regression analyses provided further support for the heuristic model. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cobalamin and folate deficiency: acquired and hereditary disorders in children

Two experiments examined the viability of several explanations for why majority group individuals process persuasive messages from stigmatized sources more than those from nonstigmatized sources. In each study, majority group participants who either were high or low in prejudice or were high or low in ambivalence toward a stigmatized source's group were exposed to a persuasive communication attributed to a stigmatized (Black, Experiment 1; homosexual, Experiment 2) or nonstigmatized (White, Experiment 1; heterosexual, Experiment 2) source. In both studies, source stigmatization increased message scrutiny only among those who were low in prejudice toward the stigmatized group. This finding is most consistent with the view that people scrutinize messages from stigmatized sources in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others.     

Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis.

Applied a cognitive response analysis to the use of rhetorical questions in persuasion. 160 college students heard a counterattitudinal message in which the major arguments were summarized in either statement or rhetorical forms. The personal relevance of the issue and the quality of the arguments employed in the message were also varied. The use of rhetorical questions was found to either increase or decrease the cognitive elaboration of a message depending on the personal relevance of the communication. When the message was of low personal relevance and recipients were not naturally processing the statement form of the message diligently, the use of rhetoricals enhanced thinking: A message with strong arguments became more persuasive, and a message with weak arguments became less persuasive with rhetoricals. However, when the message was of high personal relevance and recipients were already highly motivated to process the statement form of the message, the use of rhetoricals disrupted thinking: A message with strong arguments became less persuasive, and a message with weak arguments became more persuasive with rhetoricals. This 3-way interaction was expected from the cognitive response analysis, but not from competing formulations. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny.

Two experiments examined the viability of several explanations for why majority group individuals process persuasive messages from stigmatized sources more than those from nonstigmatized sources. in each study. majority group participants who either were high or low in prejudice or were high or low in ambivalence toward a stigmatized source's group were exposed to a persuasive communication attributed to a stigmatized (Black, Experiment 1; homosexual, Experiment 2) or nonstigmatized (White, Experiment 1; heterosexual, Experiment 2) source. In both studies, source stigmatization increased message scrutiny only among those who were low in prejudice toward the stigmatized group. This finding is most consistent with the view that people scrutinize messages from stigmatized sources in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion.

Although the mere exposure effect has been researched widely, surprisingly little is known about the attitudinal and cognitive effects of message repetition. It was hypothesized that the sequence of topic-relevant thoughts generated in response to a (repeated) persuasive message would parallel attitude change. To test this prediction, 2 experiments were conducted. In Exp I, 133 undergraduates heard a communication either 0 (control), 1, 3, or 5 times in succession, rated their agreement with the advocated position, and listed the message arguments they could recall. In Exp II, 193 undergraduates heard a communication either 1, 3, or 5 times, rated their agreement, listed their thoughts, and listed the message arguments they could recall. In both experiments, agreement first increased, then decreased as exposure frequency increased (regardless of the position advocated), but agreement was unrelated to the recall of the message arguments. In Exp II, analyses of the listed thoughts revealed that counterargumentation decreased, then increased, whereas topic-irrelevant thinking increased as exposure frequency increased; as expected, only topic-relevant thoughts were related to agreement. Results are interpreted in terms of an attitude-modification model in which repetition and content of a persuasive advocacy affect the type and number of thoughts generated; these thoughts, in turn, affect the attitudinal reaction to the advocacy. (63 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The impact of repetition-induced familiarity on agreement with weak and strong arguments.

Repeated statements are perceived as more valid than novel ones, termed the illusion of truth effect, presumably because repetition imbues the statement with familiarity. In 3 studies, the authors examined the conditions under which and the processes by which familiarity signals from repetition and argument quality signals from processing of message content influenced agreement with persuasive arguments. Participants with low or high motivation to process information were presented persuasive arguments seen once or twice. In all 3 studies, repetition increased the persuasiveness of weak and strong arguments when little processing of message content occurred. Two of the studies used a process dissociation procedure to reveal that both greater controlled processing (which reflected argument content) and the greater automatic influence of familiarity (which reflected repetition) were associated with increased acceptance of strong arguments but that greater controlled processing dissipated the benefits of familiarity for agreement with weak arguments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The pursuit of self-interest: Self-interest bias in attitude judgment and persuasion.

Self-interest affected the direction of attitudes in 4 studies exploring attitude judgment and persuasion. Experiment 1 showed that both self-interest and symbolic concerns predicted attitudes. The biasing role of self-interest in producing the well-known persuasion effects of personal relevance and argument strength was examined by disentangling the competing effects of personal costs and benefits. Experiment 2 used a standard personal relevance manipulation in the absence of supportive arguments and showed that perceptions of personal costs associated with the advocated policy partially mediated its negative effects on attitudes. Experiments 3 and 4 independently manipulated the onset of personal costs associated with an issue and the onset of issue-related benefits conveyed by supportive arguments. Postmessage attitudes were an additive function of personal costs and argument-specified benefits, and perceived costs and benefits biased information processing in a self-interested manner. A revised conception of personal relevance and argument strength is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications.

The ability of majorities and minorities to induce privately accepted attitude change by systematic or nonsystematic processing was investigated in four studies. In two of these studies, subjects simultaneously exposed to a majority with which they disagreed and a minority with which they agreed showed considerable issue-relevant processing of the majority message and long-term, generalized private acceptance of the majority position. A third experiment demonstrated that this change was in response to the majority position and was not a reaction against the minority view. Subjects provided with consensus information about the majority and minority (without a persuasive communication) also demonstrated significant attitude change, but this change did not generalize and was not maintained or mediated by subjects' thoughts about the issue. Subjects exposed to a minority with which they mildly disagreed showed slight movement toward the minority position. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion.

Studied the relation among need for cognition (NFC), message processing, and persuasion. 57 pairs of undergraduates holding approximately the same attitude toward instituting senior comprehensive exams but differing widely in their scores on a NFC scale participated in Exp I. Ss read a set of either strong or weak arguments supporting the recommendation that senior comprehensive exams be instituted. Results reveal that argument quality had a greater impact on the message evaluations and source impressions provided by Ss high than by those low in NFC and that Ss high in NFC reported expending more cognitive effort and recalled more message arguments regardless of argument quality. The findings from Exp I were replicated in Exp II (110 female undergraduates) with a different topic (i.e., raising student tuition) and cover story. The inclusion of a postcommunication attitude measure revealed that the attitudes of Ss high in NFC were more affected by argument quality than those of Ss low in NFC. These studies document a reliable difference among individuals in their tendency to derive information from and elaborate on externally provided message arguments. (39 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing.

A strong or weak message was introduced to 160 undergraduates with either rhetorical questions or statements under high or low issue involvement. Introductions with rhetorical questions were found to produce more favorable thoughts and a more positive attitude than statements when strong arguments were employed, and more unfavorable thoughts and less positive attitude when weak arguments were employed. Introductions with rhetorical questions led to more favorable thoughts than statements when involvement was low and to more unfavorable thoughts and a less positive attitude when involvement was high. It is argued that introductions with questions arouse the reader's uncertainty and motivate more intensive processing of message content than statements. The possibility of a nonmonotonic relation between issue involvement and persuasion given a strong counter-attitudinal message is suggested. (31 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Processing of persuasive in-group messages.

Two studies investigated the processes mediating the persuasive impact of messages representing in-group opinions. In the 1st study, Ss read either a strong or a weak message attributed to either an in-group member or to another group. Ss were more persuaded by a strong message from the in-group than a weak one, suggesting content-focused processing of the in-group message. Ss were equally unpersuaded by either a strong or a weak message from the other group, and showed little sign of message processing. In the 2nd study, Ss listened to in-group or other-group messages about issues that varied in their relevance to in-group membership. When the issue was relevant to the in-group, Ss were persuaded by a strong message from the in-group, unpersuaded by a weak message from the in-group, and equally unimpressed by strong and weak messages from the other group. When the issue was irrelevant to the in-group, Ss accepted the position advocated by the in-group regardless of message quality, and again ignored messages from the other group. These results suggest that increased message processing, and not merely the impact of source persuasion cues, can underlie in-group-mediated attitude change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis.

Previous research in the domain of attitude change has described 2 primary dimensions of thinking that impact persuasion processes and outcomes: the extent (amount) of thinking and the direction (valence) of issue-relevant thought. The authors examined the possibility that another, more meta-cognitive aspect of thinking is also important--the degree of confidence people have in their own thoughts. Four studies test the notion that thought confidence affects the extent of persuasion. When positive thoughts dominate in response to a message, increasing confidence in those thoughts increases persuasion, but when negative thoughts dominate, increasing confidence decreases persuasion. In addition, using self-reported and manipulated thought confidence in separate studies, the authors provide evidence that the magnitude of the attitude-thought relationship depends on the confidence people have in their thoughts. Finally, the authors also show that these self-validation effects are most likely in situations that foster high amounts of information processing activity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing.

The authors argued that emotions characterized by certainty appraisals promote heuristic processing whereas emotions characterized by uncertainty appraisals result in systematic processing. The 1st experiment demonstrated that the certainty associated with an emotion affects the certainty experienced in subsequent situations. The next 3 experiments investigated effects on processing of emotions associated with certainty and uncertainty. Compared with emotions associated with uncertainty, emotions associated with certainty resulted in greater reliance on the expertise of a source of a persuasive message in Experiment 2, more stereotyping in Experiment 3, and less attention to argument quality in Experiment 4. In contrast to previous theories linking valence and processing, these findings suggest that the certainty appraisal content of emotions is also important in determining whether people engage in systematic or heuristic processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)