Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion.

Previous research on the persuasive impact of an overheard audience has yielded conflicting results. In this study, we attempted to understand such audience effects within the framework of the heuristic model of persuasion. Subjects listened to an audiotaped persuasive message that conveyed arguments of either high or low quality and that was responded to by either an enthusiastic or an unenthusiastic overheard audience. In addition, subject involvement (high vs. low) was varied. Consistent with predictions, the audience response cue influenced postmessage opinions only under low involvement; under high involvement, only argument quality affected persuasion. Analyses that took into account subjects' need for cognition supported the additional hypothesis that individuals lower in need for cognition would be more responsive to the audience manipulation under low involvement. Thought-listing data and regression analyses provided further support for the heuristic model.

[1]  K. Williams,et al.  The Effects of Group Diffusion of Cognitive Effort on Attitudes: An Information-Processing View. , 1980 .

[2]  R. Abelson.  Script processing in attitude formation and decision making. , 1976 .

[3]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Cognitive Mediation of Positive Affect in Persuasion , 1987 .

[4]  P. Kirschner,et al.  FACILITATING EFFECTS OF "EATING-WHILE-READING" ON RESPONSIVENESS TO PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATIONS. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  R. K. Tucker,et al.  Heckling as distraction: An experimental study of its effect on source credibility , 1974 .

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

[7]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  ON PREDICTING SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME: THE SEARCH FOR CROSS-SITUATIONAL CONSISTENCIES IN BEHAVIOR , 1974 .

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

[9]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[10]  C. I. Hovland.  The Order Of Presentation In Persuasion , 1966 .

[11]  H. Kelman.  PROCESSES OF OPINION CHANGE , 1961 .

[12]  R. Sorrentino,et al.  The case of the mysterious moderates: Why motives sometimes fail to predict behavior. , 1977 .

[13]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  Distraction Increases Yielding to Propaganda by Inhibiting Counterarguing. , 1970 .

[14]  Barbara Means,et al.  The influence of positive affect on decision-making strategy. , 1983 .

[15]  David Landy,et al.  The effects of an overheard audience's reaction and attractiveness on opinion change , 1972 .

[16]  C. Silverthorne,et al.  The Effects of Heckling and Media of Presentation on the Impact of a Persuasive Communication. , 1975, The Journal of social psychology.

[17]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Cognitive theories of persuasion , 1984 .

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

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

[20]  R. E. Burnkrant,et al.  Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing. , 1984 .

[21]  B. R. Schlenker.  Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations , 1980 .

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

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

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

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

[26]  E. Stotland,et al.  An experimental investigation of need for cognition. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[27]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. , 1983 .

[28]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches , 1981 .

[29]  Ramon J. Rhine,et al.  Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change. , 1970 .

[30]  Rochelle Lynne Chaiken,et al.  THE USE OF SOURCE VERSUS MESSAGE CUES IN PERSUASION: AN INFORMATION PROCESSING ANALYSIS. , 1977 .

[31]  J. Hocking,et al.  Intra-Audience Effects: A Field Test , 1977 .

[32]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Social Context Effects in Persuasion: The Effects of Multiple Sources and Multiple Targets , 1983 .

[33]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Salience, Attention, and Attribution: Top of the Head Phenomena , 1978 .

[34]  C. Nemeth.  Differential contributions of majority and minority influence , 1986 .

[35]  Jennifer Crocker,et al.  Person memory and causal attributions. , 1983 .

[36]  C. Hylton,et al.  Intra-Audience Effects: Observable Audience Response , 1971 .

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

[38]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Basic group processes , 1983 .

[39]  Suzanne R. Pallak.  Salience of a Communicator's Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion: A Heuristic Versus Systematic Processing Interpretation , 1983 .

[40]  T. Ostrom,et al.  Political heckling: Who really loses? , 1974 .