Why Counterattitudinal Messages Are as Memorable as Proattitudinal Messages: The Importance of Active Defense Against Attack

Three experiments were designed to clarify the mechanisms underlying Eagly, Chen, Chaiken, and Shaw-Barnes’s (1999) meta-analytic demonstration that attitudinally congenial information has typically not been more memorable than uncongenial information. Participants remembered congenial and uncongenial messages equally well, despite their disapproval of the uncongenial information. This null congeniality effect was obtained regardless of whether (a) messages pertained to abortion or gays in the military or presented information on both sides or only one side of the issue; (b) recognition or recall measures were administered soon after the message or 2 weeks later; and (c) participants were or were not activists on the issue, had stronger or weaker attitudes, had more prior knowledge of counterattitudinal (vs. proattitudinal) arguments, or did or did not have their attention constrained to the message. Process findings suggested that participants’ thoughtful counterarguing of the uncongenial messages enhanced their memory for them.

[1]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Health Messages , 1992 .

[2]  Z. Kunda,et al.  The case for motivated reasoning. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Dual-process theories in social psychology , 1999 .

[4]  A. Eagly,et al.  Using research syntheses to plan future research. , 1994 .

[5]  R. Prislin,et al.  Motivated Cognitive Processing and Attitude Change , 1998 .

[6]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude strength and resistance processes. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  N. Feather Balancing and positivity effects in social recall , 1970 .

[8]  Bennet B. Murdock,et al.  CHAPTER 1 – Recognition Memory , 1982 .

[9]  Anthony G. Greenwald,et al.  The cognitive representation of attitudes. , 1989 .

[10]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Vividness can undermine the persuasiveness of messages. , 1993 .

[11]  A. L. Edwards Political frames of reference as a factor influencing recognition. , 1941 .

[12]  M. Sherif,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1946, Psychological review.

[13]  Randall R. Kleinhesselink,et al.  Seeking and avoiding belief-discrepant information as a function of its perceived refutability. , 1975 .

[14]  W. Mcguire,et al.  PERSISTENCE OF INDUCED OPINION CHANGE AND RETENTION OF THE INDUCING MESSAGE CONTENTS. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[15]  J. Koehler The Influence of Prior Beliefs on Scientific Judgments of Evidence Quality , 1993 .

[16]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis , 1989 .

[17]  E. Hunt Mechanics of Verbal Ability. , 1978 .

[18]  J. Levine,et al.  The learning and forgetting of controversial material. , 1943 .

[19]  R. Rosenthal Parametric measures of effect size. , 1994 .

[20]  Annie Lang,et al.  Measuring psychological responses to media messages , 1994 .

[21]  Samuel T. Mayo,et al.  Statistical methods in education and psychology , 1979 .

[22]  N. Feather Attitude and selective recall. , 1969 .

[23]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions , 1992 .

[24]  Michael T. Watkins Principles of Persuasion , 2001 .

[25]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Attitude and selective learning: where are the phenomena of yesteryear? , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Patricia G. Devine,et al.  Attitude Importance and Resistance to Persuasion: It's Not Just the Thought That Counts , 2004 .

[27]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  A. Greenwald,et al.  A Sociocognitive Model of Attitude Structure and Function , 1989 .

[29]  J. Brigham,et al.  The influence of attitude on the recall of controversial material: A failure to confirm , 1969 .

[30]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. , 1996 .

[31]  J. Brigham,et al.  Selective Evaluation and Recall During the 1980 Reagan‐Carter Debate1 , 1983 .

[32]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change , 1982 .

[33]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Working Knowledge, Cognitive Processing, and Attitudes: On the Determinants of Bias , 1996 .

[34]  J. Krosnick,et al.  The causes and consequences of attitude importance. , 1995 .

[35]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[36]  James A. Kulik,et al.  Schematic effects of social attitudes on information processing and recall. , 1980 .

[37]  M. Zanna Message receptivity: A new look at the old problem of open- versus closed-mindedness. , 1993 .

[38]  T. Brock,et al.  Behavioral receptivity to dissonant information. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  S. Bochner,et al.  Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change. , 1966 .

[40]  Julian V. Roberts The Attitude-Memory Relationship After 40 Years: A Meta-analysis of the Literature , 1985 .

[41]  V. Hall,et al.  Relative Importance of Aptitude and Prior Domain Knowledge on Immediate and Delayed Posttests. , 1992 .

[42]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[43]  James A. Scepansky,et al.  Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. , 1998 .

[44]  W. S. Watson,et al.  The rigidity of a basic attitudinal frame. , 1939 .

[45]  A. Greenwald Consequences of Prejudice Against the Null Hypothesis , 1975 .

[46]  J. Krosnick Attitude importance and attitude change , 1988 .

[47]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The impact of attitudes on memory: an affair to remember. , 1999, Psychological bulletin.

[48]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Uneven progress: Social psychology and the study of attitudes. , 1992 .

[49]  Fencing off the deviant: The role of cognitive resources in the maintenance of stereotypes , 1999 .

[50]  Mark P. Zanna,et al.  A new look at selective exposure , 1979 .

[51]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[52]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. , 2000 .

[53]  T. Pettigrew,et al.  Memory for schema-relevant information: a meta-analytic resolution. , 1992, The British journal of social psychology.

[54]  A. Eagly,et al.  What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. , 1991 .

[55]  C. Stangor,et al.  Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures. , 1992 .

[56]  E. Berscheid,et al.  What is beautiful is good. , 1972, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[57]  G. Glass,et al.  Meta-analysis in social research , 1981 .