Vividness can undermine the persuasiveness of messages.

Research that presented messages on 2 social issues tested the idea that vividness effects are most likely when message recipients are not constrained to pay attention to the information. When a low level of attentional constraint was established by presenting a message to Ss in a seemingly incidental manner, vivid messages were less memorable and less persuasive than pallid messages. Process data suggested that the vivid elements in a message (i.e., colorful language, picturesque examples, and provocative metaphors) interfered with Ss' reception of its essential meaning and thereby reduced its memorability and persuasiveness. In contrast, when Ss' attention was constrained by instructing them to attend to a message, its vividness had no impact on their memory for its contents or on its persuasiveness

[1]  R. Bornstein Subliminal techniques as propaganda tools: review and critique , 1989 .

[2]  D. Romer Distraction, counterarguing and the internalization of attitude change , 1979 .

[3]  Anthony G. Greenwald,et al.  Psychological foundations of attitudes , 1968 .

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

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

[6]  J. Brehm,et al.  Attitude change from an implied threat to attitudinal freedom. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[7]  P. Zimbardo Modifying the impact of persuasive communications with external distraction , 1970 .

[8]  J. Bargh,et al.  Individual construct accessibility, person memory, and the recall-judgment link: The case of information overload. , 1985 .

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

[10]  R. L. Garrett,et al.  RESISTANCE TO PERSUASION: AN INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK , 1968 .

[11]  Rebecca L. Collins,et al.  The vividness effect: Elusive or illusory? , 1988 .

[12]  Melvin Manis,et al.  Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects , 1986 .

[13]  Harris Cooper,et al.  Statistically Combining Independent Studies: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Conformity Research , 1979 .

[14]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[15]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. , 1982 .

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

[17]  John R. Anderson,et al.  RECOGNITION AND RETRIEVAL PROCESSES IN FREE RECALL , 1972 .

[18]  G. Bower,et al.  Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. , 1980 .

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

[20]  D. Mackie,et al.  On-line and memory-based modification of attitudes: determinants of message recall-attitude change correspondence. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[21]  John Brown,et al.  Recall and Recognition , 1976 .

[22]  A. Eagly,et al.  Sex of researchers and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence studies , 1981 .

[23]  Stephen Worchel,et al.  Direct and Implied Social Restoration of Freedom. , 1971 .

[24]  H. Hornstein,et al.  The effects of social and nonsocial information on interpersonal behavior of males: The news makes news. , 1977 .

[25]  R. Hastie,et al.  The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line , 1986 .

[26]  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.

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

[28]  H. P. Bahrick Two-phase model for prompted recall. , 1970 .

[29]  M. Venkatesan,et al.  Resistance to persuasive communications: an examination of the distraction hypothesis. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[31]  E F Loftus,et al.  Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. , 1985, Journal of personality assessment.

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

[33]  Martin Fishbein,et al.  Acceptance yielding and impact: cognitive processes in persuasion. , 1981 .

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

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

[36]  Timothy C. Brock,et al.  Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification , 1976 .

[37]  H. Hornstein,et al.  Effects of knowledge about remote social events on prosocial behavior, social conception, and mood. , 1975 .