The impact of mood on persuasion: A meta-analysis

Communication Research

Volumn 32, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 423-442

  Hullett, Craig R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Attitude; Hedonic contingency; Mood

Indexed keywords

EID: 22944468762     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650205277317     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bless, H., Mackie, D. H., & Schwartz, N. (1992). Mood effects on attitude judgments: Independent effects of mood before and after message elaboration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 585-595.
2. Bohner, G., Chaiken, S., & Hunyadi, P. (1994). The role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of heuristic and systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 207-221.
3. Bohner, G., Crow, K., Erb, H., & Schwartz, N. (1992). Affect and persuasion: Mood effects on the processing of message content and context cues and on subsequent behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 511-530.
4. Bohner, G., & Weinerth, T. (2001). Negative affect can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The affect interpretation hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1417-1428.
5. Boster, F. J., & Mongeau, P. (1984). Fear-arousing persuasive messages. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 330-375). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
7. 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.
8. Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.
9. D'Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2002). Selective exposure and dissonance after decisions. Psychological Reports, 91, 527-532.
10. Dillard, J. P., & Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and the structure of affect. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 309-328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2001). Persuasion and the structure of affect: Dual systems and discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27, 38-68.
12. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
13. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14. Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381-403). New York: Guilford.
15. Hullett, C. R., & Levine, T. (2003). The overestimation of effect sizes from F values in meta-analysis: The cause and a solution. Communication Monographs, 70, 52-67.
16. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
18. Keller, P. A., Lipkus, I. M., & Rimer, B. K. (2003). Affect, framing, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 54-64.
19. Kuykendall, D., & Keeting, J. P. (1990). Mood and persuasion: Evidence for the differential influence of positive and negative states. Psychology and Marketing, 7, 1-9.
20. Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 27-40.
22. Marcus, G., & MacKuen, M. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87, 672-685.
23. Mitchell, M. M. (2000). Able but not motivated? The relative effects of happy and sad mood on persuasive message processing. Communication Monographs, 67, 215-226.
24. Mitchell, M. M., Brown, K., Morris-Villagran, M., & Villagran, P. D. (2001). The effect of anger, sadness, and happiness on persuasive message processing: A test of the negative state relief model. Communication Monographs, 68, 347-359.
25. Mongeau, P. (1998). Another look at fear-arousing persuasive appeals. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 53-68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
26. O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 329-344). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
28. Raghunathan, R., & Trope, Y. (2002). Walking the tightrope between feeling good and being accurate: Mood as a resource in processing persuasive messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 510-525.
29. Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional and hierarchical structure of affect. Psychological Science, 10, 297-303.
30. Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973-988.
31. Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 195-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across affective states: The hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034-1048.
33. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Klein, D. J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 25-43.
34. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood on message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
35. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591-615.
36. Worth, L. T., & Mackie, D. M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Social Cognition, 5, 76-94.