Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Health Messages

Subectsfor whom a health threat was relvant or irrelevant were recruited and matched on prior beliefs in the health threat. Following exposure to either a low- or a high-threat message, high-relvance subjects were less likely to believe in the threat. Consistent with earlier work, no evidence was found to suggest that defensive inattention to the messages mediated subjects' final beliefs. Instead, processing measures suggested that highrelevance subects processed threatening parts of both messages in a biased fashion. The relationship between biased judgment and biased processing is discussed, as are the difficulties in documenting the latter

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

[2]  Franklin J. Boster,et al.  Fear-Arousing Persuasive Messages , 1984 .

[3]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration , 1990 .

[4]  I. Janis,et al.  An experimental study of psychological resistance to fear-arousing communications. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[5]  Dieter Frey,et al.  Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

[6]  Robert S. Wyer,et al.  The effects of feedback about self and others on the recall and judgments of feedback-relevant information ☆ , 1983 .

[7]  O. J. Harvey,et al.  Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change. , 1957, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[8]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  Personal involvement: An examination of processing differences. , 1986 .

[9]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of Forwarning of Persuasive Intent and Involvement on Cognitive Responses and Persuasion , 1979 .

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

[11]  Irving L. Janis,et al.  Effects of Fear Arousal on Attitude Change: Recent Developments in Theory and Experimental Research1 , 1967 .

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

[13]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion , 1984 .

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

[15]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. , 1979 .

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

[17]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model , 1987 .

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

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

[20]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .