Selective Use of Heunrstic and Systematic Processing Under Defense Motivation

Recent versions of the heuristic-systematic model predict that defense-motivated people will process heuristic cues selectively in two ways: (a) Heuristic cues will be subject to biased evaluation, and (b) heuristic, rather than systematic, processing will predominate when cues support, rather than threaten, defensive concerns. This experiment presented college students with a proposed mandatory essay-exam program, giving opinion poll results as a heuristic cue, followed either by arguments both for and against essay exams, or by no arguments. Cues congenial to students' preferred test type were judged as more reliable than hostile cues when no arguments were presented. Systematic processing mediated attitude judgment only when the cue was hostile; when the cue was congenial, attitude judgment was more influenced by vested interest. This influence may represent a low-effort heuristic processing strategy specific to defense motivation.

[1]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  The Causes of Hostile Media Judgments , 1994 .

[2]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Affective-cognitive consistency and thought-induced attitude polarization. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  T. Tyler,et al.  Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting , 1980, American Political Science Review.

[4]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

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

[6]  Muzafer Sherif,et al.  Attitude, ego-involvement, and change , 1967 .

[7]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  A. Tesser.  Reproductions Supplied by Edrs Are the Best That Can Be Made * * from the Original Document. toward a Self-evaluation Maintenance Model of Social Behavior* , 2007 .

[9]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Attitudes and Attitude Change , 1987 .

[10]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[11]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[13]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Majority and minority influence : source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny , 1994 .

[14]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information , 1995 .

[15]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective1 , 1969 .

[16]  I. Janis,et al.  Effect of fear-arousing communications. , 1953, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[17]  Thomas F. Pettigrew,et al.  The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport's Cognitive Analysis of Prejudice , 1979 .

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

[19]  C. Steele.  The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self , 1988 .

[20]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. , 1996 .

[21]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. , 1986 .

[22]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Involvement and Persuasion: Types, Traditions, and the Evidence , 1990 .

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

[24]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. , 1990 .

[25]  D. Katz.  THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ATTITUDES , 1960 .

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

[27]  Kathleen Holt,et al.  Maintaining Consistency between Self-Serving Beliefs and Available Data , 1985 .

[28]  M. Ross,et al.  Egocentric Biases in Availability and Attribution , 1979 .

[29]  E. Higgins,et al.  Handbook of motivation and cognition : foundations of social behavior , 1991 .

[30]  Wendy Wood,et al.  Access to attitude-relevant information in memory as a determinant of persuasion: The role of message attributes , 1985 .

[31]  D. O. Sears,et al.  The Role of Self-Interest in Social and Political Attitudes , 1991 .

[32]  S. Chaiken.  The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[33]  Swann,et al.  To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. , 1990 .

[34]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[35]  G. Herek.  Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes. , 1987 .

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

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

[38]  Mark R. Lepper,et al.  The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. , 1985 .

[39]  A. Tesser,et al.  Thought-induced attitude change: The effects of schema structure and commitment. , 1986 .

[40]  S. Ratneshwar,et al.  The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Persuasion , 1997 .

[41]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. , 1996 .