A comparison of exemplar and statistical evidence in reducing counter‐arguments and responses to a message

A growing body of research indicates that both exemplar and statistical evidence are equally persuasive, but that persuasion is achieved differently due to the responses individuals have to these two forms of evidence. This study investigated the use of exemplars to reduce the generation of counterarguments and overall responses to a message compared to statistical evidence. Participants were exposed to a professionally produced 60 second videotaped public service announcement (PSA) on the dangers of tanning. As predicted, participants exposed to the PSA constructed with exemplar support produced significantly fewer counterarguments and fewer responses overall than those participants exposed to a PSA with statistical evidence. Additionally, there was no difference in the persuasive effect between evidence types, but both types of evidence were significantly more persuasive when compared to a control group.

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  The persuasive effects of statistical evidence in the presence of exemplars , 2000 .

[3]  Dolf Zillmann,et al.  Exemplification Theory: Judging the Whole by Some of Its Parts , 1999 .

[4]  Sandi W. Smith,et al.  Affective and cognitive reactions to narrative versus statistical evidence organ donation messages. , 1998 .

[5]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitudes and attitude change. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  M. Slater,et al.  Value-Affirmative and Value-Protective Processing of Alcohol Education Messages That Include Statistical Evidence or Anecdotes , 1996 .

[7]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The Temporal Effects of Story and Statistical Evidence on Belief Change , 1994 .

[8]  Hans-Bernd Brosius,et al.  The Utility of Exemplars in Persuasive Communications , 1994 .

[9]  Dean Kazoleas,et al.  A comparison of the persuasive effectiveness of qualitative versus quantitative evidence: A test of explanatory hypotheses , 1993 .

[10]  Joohn C. Reinard.  The Empirical Study of the Persuasive Effects of Evidence The Status After Fifty Years of Research , 1988 .

[11]  Russell T. Church,et al.  Values and Policies in Controversy: An Introduction to Argumentation and Debate , 1986 .

[12]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. , 1983 .

[13]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. , 1982 .

[14]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Stalking the elusive "vividness" effect. , 1982 .

[15]  Richard E. Nisbett,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement , 1981 .

[16]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases , 1980 .

[17]  Y. Trope,et al.  The effects of base rates and individuating information on judgments about another person , 1980 .

[18]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  The Differential Impact of Abstract vs. Concrete Information on Decisions , 1977 .

[19]  T. Harte.  The effects of evidence in persuasive communication , 1976 .

[20]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  Attribution and the psychology of prediction. , 1975 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[22]  T. Harte.  The Effects of Initial Attitude and Evidence in Persuasive Communications , 1972 .