Motivated Cognitive Processing and Attitude Change

Two experiments investigated cognitive processing and attitudes under different motivations. In Experiment 1, 63 participants had either strong nondirectional (accuracy) or directional (defensive, impression) motives. Accuracy motivation resulted in extensive objective processing. Defensive motivation resulted in extensive biased processing. Impression motivation resulted in extensive processing that was directional in some measures but balanced in other measures. Cognitive processing mediated the effects of motivation on attitudes, which were stable across measurements. In Experiment 2, 44 participants processed under two combined strong motivations. Accuracy was successfully combined with directional motivation in both processing and attitudes. It reduced bias when combined with impression motivation but not when combined with defensive motivation. Two opposing directional motivations were difficult to combine, and participants eventually abandoned extensive processing.

[1]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. , 1987 .

[2]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[3]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[4]  R. Prislin,et al.  Behavior, Consequences, and the Seff: Is all Well that Ends Well? , 1996 .

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

[6]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Social encoding and subsequent attitudes, impressions, and memory: "Context-driven" and motivational aspects of processing. , 1984 .

[7]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion , 1986, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.

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

[9]  A. Kruglanski.  Lay epistemo-logic—process and contents: Another look at attribution theory. , 1980 .

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

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

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

[13]  D P MacKinnon,et al.  Analysis of mediating variables in prevention and intervention research. , 1994, NIDA research monograph.

[14]  Arie W. Kruglanski,et al.  The Human Subject in the Psychology Experiment: Fact and Artifact , 1975 .

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

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

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

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

[19]  M. Sobel.  Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models , 1982 .

[20]  S. Fiske,et al.  The Handbook of Social Psychology , 1935 .

[21]  Tom Pyszczynski,et al.  Biased Information Search in the Interpersonal Domain , 1989 .

[22]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[23]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.