The Comparative Statics and Dynamics of Beliefs: The Effect of Message Discrepancy and Source Credibility

Two models of belief change, Laroche's (1977) comparative statics model and the single-push with friction dynamic model (Kaplowitz, Fink, & Bauer, 1983), were combined and tested. Beliefs about two issues (criminal sentencing and tuition increase) were measured every 77 ms, N=95. Eleven time points from each participant's belief trajectory were analyzed. Message discrepancy and source credibility were manipulated. As predicted, belief change monotonically increased over time and the rate of belief change decreased for both issues. For the criminal-sentencing issue, the relationship between message discrepancy and belief change was found to be positive and monotonic for messages from a high-credibility source but nonmonotonic for messages from a low-credibility source. For the criminal-sentencing issue the predicted overtime increase of the effect of message discrepancy on belief change for a high-credibility source and an over-time increase of the effect of source credibility on belief change were found.

[1]  Edward L. Fink,et al.  Attitude Change and Attitudinal Trajectories: A Dynamic Multidimensional Theory , 1982 .

[2]  A. Tesser,et al.  Attitude polarization as a function of thought and reality constraints , 1976 .

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

[4]  A. Tesser,et al.  Some Effects of Salience and Time Upon Interpersonal Hostility and Attraction During Social Isolation 1,2 , 1973 .

[5]  Edward L. Fink,et al.  Interattitude Structure and Attitude Dynamics A Comparison of the Hierarchical and Galileo Spatial-Linkage Models , 2005 .

[6]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  Consequences of violating the independence assumption in analysis of variance. , 1986 .

[7]  Milton Lodge,et al.  Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions , 1981 .

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

[9]  R. A. Wicklund,et al.  Regret and dissonance reduction as a function of postdecision salience of dissonant information. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  Robin R. Vallacher,et al.  Intrinsic Dynamics of Social Judgment , 1994 .

[11]  D. Toy Monitoring Communication Effects: A Cognitive Structure/Cognitive Response Approach , 1982 .

[12]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion , 1981 .

[13]  M. Laroche A model of attitude change in groups following a persuasive communication: An attempt at formalizing research findings , 1977 .

[14]  T H CHOO,et al.  COMMUNICATOR CREDIBILITY AND COMMUNICATION DISCREPANCY AS DETERMINANTS OF OPINION CHANGE. , 1964, The Journal of social psychology.

[15]  A. Tesser Self-Generated Attitude Change , 1978 .

[16]  E. L. Fink,et al.  Positional discrepancy, psychological discrepancy, and attitude change: Experimental tests of some mathematical models 1 , 1983 .

[17]  Sungeun Chung,et al.  The Cognitive Dynamics of Beliefs: The Effect of Information on Message Processing , 2008 .

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

[19]  N. Anderson,et al.  New light on order effects in attitude change. , 1973 .

[20]  James Price Dillard,et al.  The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice , 2002 .

[21]  J. Woelfel,et al.  Inertia in Cognitive Processes: The Role of Accumulated Information in Attitude Change , 1975 .

[22]  Robert L. Hamblin Ratio Measurement for the Social Sciences , 1971 .

[23]  S. Kaplowitz,et al.  Disentangling the effects of discrepant and disconfirming information , 1991 .

[24]  Edward L. Fink,et al.  A dynamic model of the effect of discrepant information on unidimensional attitude change , 1983 .

[25]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Unbelieving the Unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information , 1990 .

[26]  A. Greenwald 6 – Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change1 , 1968 .

[27]  J. Haldane Possible Worlds, and other Essays , 1928, Nature.

[28]  M. Slater,et al.  How Message Evaluation and Source Attributes May Influence Credibility Assessment and Belief Change , 1996 .

[29]  Patrick S. Malone,et al.  Unbelieving the Unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information , 1990 .

[30]  T. Cook Competence, counterarguing, and attitude change , 1969 .

[31]  J. Freedman,et al.  INVOLVEMENT, DISCREPANCY, AND CHANGE. , 1964, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[32]  N. Anderson Integration theory and attitude change. , 1971 .

[33]  R. L. Hamblin Mathematical Experimentation and Sociological Theory: A Critical Analysis , 1972 .

[34]  Edward L. Fink,et al.  Oscillation in Beliefs and Decisions , 2002 .

[35]  A. Tesser,et al.  Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. , 1975 .

[36]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production , 1967 .

[37]  Norman Braun Dynamics and comparative statics of Coleman's exchange model* , 1990 .

[38]  M. Birnbaum,et al.  Source Credibility in Social Judgment : Bias , Expertise , and the Judge ' s Point of View , 1979 .

[39]  William J. McGuire,et al.  Cognitive consistency and attitude change. , 1960 .

[40]  Chanthika Pornpitakpan The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence , 2004 .

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

[42]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .