Profiling Persuasion: The Role of Beliefs, Knowledge, and Interest in the Processing of Persuasive Texts That Vary by Argument Structure

Undergrauate participants read both a one-sided text on educational reform and a two-sided nonrefutational text on the V-Chip. Students completed topic-specific beliefs, knowledge, and interest measures and reacted to specific text characteristics. The results indicated that although both forms of text affected readers, the effects varied by the type of argument structure. Specifically, after adjusting for topic, the one-sided text was more effective in changing readers' beliefs than the two-sided nonrefutational text, whereas the two-sided nonrefutational article was more effective in changing participants' knowledge. The knowledge and interest profiles of more or less persuaded readers differed significantly for the two-sided nonrefutational text but not for the one-sided text. Readers' reactions to the articles also differed by argument structure. Overall, this study contributes to the understanding of readers' processing of one-sided and two-sided nonrefutational texts.

[1]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  The persuasiveness of persuasive discourse , 2001 .

[2]  P. Karen Murphy,et al.  Teaching as Persuasion: A New Metaphor for a New Decade , 2001 .

[3]  Marilyn J. Chambliss,et al.  Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. , 1995 .

[4]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition , 1994 .

[5]  G. Miller.  On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions , 2002 .

[6]  Suzanne Hidi,et al.  Interest and Its Contribution as a Mental Resource for Learning , 1990 .

[7]  Michael Elwood Roloff,et al.  Persuasion : new directions in theory and research , 1980 .

[8]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[9]  Roger E. Kirk,et al.  Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). , 1995 .

[10]  S. Vosniadou.  Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. , 1994 .

[11]  Patricia A. Alexander,et al.  Interrelationship of Knowledge, Interest, and Recall: Assessing a Model of Domain Learning , 1995 .

[12]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. , 1997 .

[13]  Perspectives on Conceptual Change , 2000 .

[14]  I. Worthington.  Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action , 1994 .

[15]  R. C. Wood.  Chips ahoy , 1989 .

[16]  Barbara J. Guzzetti,et al.  Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education , 1993 .

[17]  Lane Cooper,et al.  The Rhetoric of Aristotle. , 1933 .

[18]  R. Kirk.  Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

[19]  C. Gorman.  Are animal organs safe for people? , 1996, Time.

[20]  B. Zimmerman.  Academic studing and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective , 1998 .

[21]  William F. Brewer,et al.  The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction , 1993 .

[22]  Cynthia R. Hynd,et al.  The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics , 1994 .

[23]  P. K. Murphy,et al.  Separated at birth: the shared lineage of research on conceptual change and persuasion , 2001 .

[24]  Blair T. Johnson.  Effects of Outcome-Relevant Involvement and Prior Information on Persuasion , 1994 .

[25]  C. Kardash,et al.  Effects of preexisiting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. , 1996 .

[26]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[27]  R. Osborne,et al.  Learning science: A generative process , 1983 .

[28]  P. Alexander,et al.  The Influence of Prior Knowledge, Beliefs, and Interest on Learning from Persuasive Text. , 1998 .

[29]  Robert C. Jackson,et al.  Testing a model of message sidedness: Three replications , 1990 .

[30]  John A. Glover,et al.  Massed versus distributed repeated reading: A case of forgetting helping recall? , 1990 .

[31]  D. Linder,et al.  Counterargument availability and the effects of message structure on persuasion. , 1972 .

[32]  Mike Allen,et al.  Meta‐analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one‐sided and two‐sided messages , 1991 .

[33]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  The effects of message sidedness and evidence on inoculation against counterpersuasion in small group communication , 1972 .

[34]  Alan D. Bright,et al.  A model for assessing the effects of communication on recreationists. , 1991 .

[35]  R. Gonzalez.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 2003 .

[36]  Craig A. Anderson,et al.  Using Causal Persuasive Arguments to Change Beliefs and Teach New Information: The Mediating Role of Explanation Availability and Evaluation Bias in the Acceptance of Knowledge , 1996 .

[37]  S. Brooks,et al.  Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences , 1993 .

[38]  Donna E. Alvermann,et al.  Prior Knowledge Activation and the Comprehension of Compatible and Incompatible Text. , 1985 .

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

[40]  Cynthia R. Hynd,et al.  Preservice elementary school teachers' conceptual change about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance , 1997 .

[41]  Cynthia R. Hynd,et al.  Refutational texts and the change process , 2001 .

[42]  Janice,et al.  Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge , 1998 .

[43]  Marilyn J. Chambliss,et al.  Do Adults Change their Minds after Reading Persuasive Text? , 1996 .

[44]  R. A. Jones,et al.  Persuasiveness of one- and two-sided communications as a function of awareness there are two sides , 1970 .