Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion

It was suggested that there are two basic routes to persuasion. One route is based on the thoughtful consideration of arguments central to the issue, whereas the other is based on peripheral cues in the persuasion situation. To test this view, undergraduates expressed their attitudes on an issue after exposure to a counterattitudinal advocacy containing either strong or weak arguments that emanated from a source of either high or low expertise. For some subjects, the communication was high in personal relevance, whereas for others it was low. Interactions of the personal relevance manipulation with the argument quality and expertise manipulations revealed that under high relevance, attitudes were influenced primarily by the quality of the arguments in the message, whereas under low relevance, attitudes were influenced primarily by the expertise of the source. This suggests that the personal relevance of an issue is one determinant of the route to persuasion that will be followed.

[1]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  Reinstatement of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. , 1953, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[2]  C. Staats,et al.  Attitudes established by classical conditioning. , 1958, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[3]  D. Campbell,et al.  Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. , 1959, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[4]  Carl I. Hovland,et al.  Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. , 1959 .

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

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

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

[8]  W. M. Guire 7 – Personality and Attitude Change: An Information-Processing Theory , 1968 .

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

[10]  H. H. Johnson,et al.  Effects of ego-involvement conditions on attitude change to high and low credibility communicators. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  R. Kirk Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences , 1970 .

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

[13]  C A Kiesler,et al.  Positive and negative attitudinal affect established by classical conditioning. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  N. Anderson Integration theory and attitude change. , 1971 .

[15]  J. Harvey,et al.  Opinion Change as a Function of When Information About the Communicator Is Received and Whether He Is Attractive or Expert. , 1972 .

[16]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[17]  A. Vinokur,et al.  Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. , 1974 .

[18]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Comprehensibility of persuasive arguments as a determinant of opinion change. , 1974 .

[19]  N. Miller,et al.  Speed of speech and persuasion. , 1976 .

[20]  Robert B Cialdini Elastic Shifts of Opinion: Determinants of Direction and Durability , 1976 .

[21]  R. Norman,et al.  When what is said is important: A comparison of expert and attractive sources , 1976 .

[22]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

[23]  H. Markus Self-schemata and processing information about the self. , 1977 .

[24]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[25]  A. Eagly,et al.  Attitudes and opinions. , 1978, Annual review of psychology.

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

[27]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. , 1979 .

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

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

[30]  John T. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitudes and cognitive response: An electrophysiological approach. , 1979 .

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

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

[33]  E. Langer,et al.  Role of mindlessness in the perception of deviance. , 1980, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. , 1980 .

[35]  M. Heesacker,et al.  Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. , 1981 .

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

[37]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitude and Attitude Change , 1981 .

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

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