Suppressive influence of weak arguments in mixed-quality messages: An exploration of mechanisms via argument rating, pretesting, and order effects

Basic and Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 293-304

  Friedrich, James ^a   Smith, Paul ^b  

^a WILLAMETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032343767     PISSN: 01973533     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324834basp2004_6     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic.
2. Areni, C. S., & Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 197-203.
3. Asch, S. (1946). Forming impressions in personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
4. Baker, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 5-19.
5. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
6. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
7. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
8. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
9. Eiser, J. R. (1990). Social judgment. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
10. Friedrich, J., Fetherstonhaugh, D., Casey, S., & Gallagher, D. (1996). Argument integration and attitude change: Suppression effects in the integration of one-sided arguments that vary in persuasiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 179-191.
11. Friedrich, J., Manis, M., Nelson, T., & Shedler, J. (1993, April). Attitudes and the integration of arguments that vary in persuasiveness. Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association Convention, Phoenix, AZ.
12. Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Ordereffects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55.
13. Lopes, L. L. (1987). Procedural debiasing. Acta Psychologica, 64, 167-185.
14. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses of argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
15. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
16. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic.
17. Rosselli, F., Skelly, J. J., & Mackie, D. M. (1995). Processing rational and emotional messages: The cognitive and affective mediation of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 163-190.
18. Vinokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1974). Effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts: A group-problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305-315.