Direct and Indirect Effects of Argument Quality: The Impact of Argument Strength on the Perceived Expertise of a Communicator;Direkte und Indirekte Effekte der Argumentqualität der Einfluss der Argumentstärke auf die Wahrgenommene Expertise eines Kommunikators

Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 243-255

  Reimer, Torsten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Elaboration likelihood model; Heuristic systematic model; Mediation; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346338202     PISSN: 00443514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1024/0044-3514.34.4.243     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Bless, H., Wanke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R.F. & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for Cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147-154.
3. Bohner, G., Moskowitz, G. & Chaiken, S. (1995). The interplay of heuristic and systematic processing of social information. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 33-68.
4. Bohner, G., Ruder, M. & Erb, H.-P. (in press). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology.
5. Cacioppo, J.T. & Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6. 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. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford.
9. Chen, S. & Chaiken, S. (1999).The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford.
10. Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
11. Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.
12. Kruglanski, A.W. & Thompson, E.P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.
13. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkovitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
14. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
15. Reimer, T. & Raab, M. (2002). Deriving cues from messages: Effects of argument quality on the evaluation of proponents. Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript.
16. Stroebe, W. & Jonas, K. (1997). Grundsätze des Einstellungserwerbs und Strategien der Einstellungsänderung. In W. Stroebe, M. Hewstone & G.M. Stephenson (Hrsg.), Sozialpsychologie (S. 253-289). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17. Ziegler, R., Diehl, M. & Ruther, A. (2002). Multiple source characteristics and persuasion: Source inconsistency as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 496-508.