Need for Cognition Can Magnify or Attenuate Priming Effects in Social Judgment

This article hypothesizes that the individual-difference variable, need for cognition (NFC), can have opposite implications for priming effects, depending on prime blatancy. Subtle primes are argued to be more effective for high- versus low-NFC individuals. This is because for high-NFC individuals, (a) constructs are generally easier to activate, (b) their higher amount of thought offers more opportunity for an activated construct to bias judgment, and (c) their thoughtfully formed judgments are more likely to affect behavior. However, because high-NFC individuals are adept at identifying and correcting for bias, with blatant primes the activated construct should be less likely to exert its default influence. Furthermore, with blatant primes, low-NFC individuals may achieve sufficient activation for primes to affect judgment. Across three studies, it is shown that as NFC increases, the magnitude of priming effects increases with a subtle prime but decreases with a blatant prime.

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

[2]  J. Sinacore.  Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions , 1993 .

[3]  D. Stapel,et al.  How far do we go beyond the information given? The impact of knowledge activation on interpretation and inference. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  R. Petty,et al.  Attitude strength : antecedents and consequences , 1995 .

[5]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Automatic Activation of Impression Formation and Memorization Goals: Nonconscious Goal Priming Reproduces Effects of Explicit Task Instructions , 1996 .

[6]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research , 1995 .

[7]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Self‐Validation of Cognitive Responses to Advertisements , 2004 .

[8]  D A Stapel,et al.  Let’s Not Forget the Past When We Go to the Future: On Our Knowledge of Knowledge Accessibility , 2001 .

[9]  E. Higgins,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. , 1996 .

[10]  L. Slone,et al.  The nonconsciousness of self-consciousness. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  Individual differences in resistance to persuasion: The role of beliefs and meta-beliefs , 2004 .

[12]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: the role of emotion specificity. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  W. S. Rholes,et al.  Category accessibility and impression formation , 1977 .

[14]  D. Stapel,et al.  How far do we go beyond the information given , 2000 .

[15]  Heather M. Claypool,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Priming Effects on Impression Formation Supporting a General Model of Informational Biases , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[16]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information. , 1994 .

[17]  R. Petty,et al.  Source Attributions and Persuasion: Perceived Honesty as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny , 1995 .

[18]  Leonard L. Martin,et al.  Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression. , 1990 .

[19]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[20]  T. K. Srull,et al.  The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications , 1979 .

[21]  J. Forgas.  Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  T. Mussweiler.  Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. , 2003, Psychological review.

[23]  C. F. Kao,et al.  The efficient assessment of need for cognition. , 1984, Journal of personality assessment.

[24]  Cheryl Burke Jarvis,et al.  A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research , 2003 .

[25]  M. Leary,et al.  Handbook of individual differences in social behavior , 2009 .

[26]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Effects of Epistemic Motivations on the Use of Accessible Constructs in Social Judgment , 1995 .

[27]  S. Asch,et al.  The doctrine of suggestion, prestige and imitation in social psychology. , 1948, Psychological review.

[28]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Personality and Persuasion : Need for Cognition Moderates the Persistence and Resistance of Attitude Changes , 2004 .

[29]  Kenneth G. DeMarree,et al.  Does self-consciousness increase or decrease priming effects? It depends , 2008 .

[30]  Need for cognition and the effects of repeated expression on attitude accessibility and extremity , 1994 .

[31]  L. L. Martin,et al.  Set/reset: use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  C. Carver,et al.  Modeling: An analysis in terms of category accessibility. , 1983 .

[33]  K. Markman,et al.  A Reflection and Evaluation Model of Comparative Thinking , 2003, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[34]  R. Petty.  Subtle influences on judgment and behavior: Who is most susceptible? , 2001 .

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

[36]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Not all stereotyping is created equal: differential consequences of thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  L. Slone,et al.  The nonconsciousness of self-consciousness. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[38]  Kenneth G. DeMarree,et al.  Priming a new identity: self-monitoring moderates the effects of nonself primes on self-judgments and behavior. , 2005, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[39]  C. F. Kao,et al.  Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. , 1986 .

[40]  C. Falces,et al.  Validación de la escala de necesidad de cognición y su aplicación al estudio del cambio de actitudes , 2001 .

[41]  Richard E Petty,et al.  Overt head movements and persuasion: a self-validation analysis. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[42]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivated closing of the mind: "seizing" and "freezing". , 1996, Psychological review.

[43]  Joseph P. Forgas,et al.  Social Influence: Direct and Indirect Processes , 2001 .

[44]  P. Herr,et al.  On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects , 1983 .

[45]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[46]  R. Banse,et al.  It's in the mind of the beholder: The impact of stereotypic associations on category-based and individuating impression formation. , 2003 .

[47]  R. Petty,et al.  Positive Mood and Persuasion: Different Roles for Affect Under High- and Low-Elaboration Conditions , 1993 .

[48]  R. Petty,et al.  Elaboration as a Determinant of Attitude Strength: Creating Attitudes That Are Persistent, Resistant, and Predictive of Behavior , 1995 .

[49]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Mental contamination and mental correction: unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[50]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  The Flexible Correction Model: The Role of Naive Theories of Bias in Bias Correction , 1997 .

[51]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change , 1981 .

[52]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[53]  T. Mussweiler,et al.  Sources of Mental Contamination: Comparing the Effects of Self-Generated versus Externally Provided Primes☆ , 2000 .

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

[55]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Anchoring, Activation, and the Construction of Values. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[56]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  An individual differences perspective on assessing cognitive processes. , 1996 .

[57]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  DISPOSITIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE MOTIVATION : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN NEED FOR COGNITION , 1996 .

[58]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[59]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: Correcting for Context-Induced Contrast , 1993 .

[60]  T. Mussweiler,et al.  The man who wasn't there: Subliminal social comparison standards influence self-evaluation ☆ , 2004 .

[61]  Kenneth G. DeMarree,et al.  Understanding the Role of the Self in Prime-to-Behavior Effects: The Active-Self Account , 2007, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[62]  G. Moskowitz.  Cognitive social psychology : the Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition , 1981 .

[63]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  Personal Involvement and Strategies for Making Contingency Judgments. A Stake in the Dating Game Makes a Difference , 1985 .

[64]  J. Bargh,et al.  On the Relation between Associative Strength and Automatic Behavior , 2000 .

[65]  F. Strack,et al.  Awareness of the influence as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast , 1993 .