Biassed processing of persuasive information: On the functional equivalence of cues and message arguments

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 1057-1075

  Erb, Hans Peter ^a   Pierro, Antonio ^b   Mannetti, Lucia ^b   Spiegel, Scott ^c   Kruglanski, Arie W ^d  

^a CHEMNITZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^c Howard Hughes Medical Institute   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34748895485     PISSN: 00462772     EISSN: 10990992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.420     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Abelson, R. P., & Prentice, D. A. (1997). Contrast tests of interaction hypotheses. Psychological Methods, 2, 315-328.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Bohner, G., Ruder, M., & Erb, H.-P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 495-519.
5. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
6. Chaiken, S., Duckworth, K. L., & Darke, P. (1999). When parsimony fails. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 118-123.
7. 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.
8. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
9. Chen, S., Shechter, D., & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- vs. impression motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262-275.
10. Corneille, O., Leyens, J.-P., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Walther, E. (1999). Judgeability concerns: The interplay of information, applicability, and accountability on the overattribution bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 377-387.
11. Darke, P. R., Chaiken, S., Bohner, G., Einwiller, S., Erb, H.-P., & Hazelwood, D. (1998). Accuracy motivation, consensus information, and the law of large numbers: Effects on attitude judgements in the absence of argumentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1205-1215.
12. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345-357.
13. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
14. Erb, H.-P., Bohner, G., Schmälzle, K., & Rank, S. (1998). Beyond conflict and discrepancy: Cognitive bias in minority and majority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 396-409.
15. Erb, H.-P. & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Persuasion: Ein oder zwei Prozesse? [Persuasion: One or two processes?]. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, 36, 117-131.
16. Erb, H.-P., Kruglanski, A. W., Chun, W. Y., Pierrô, A., Mannetti, L., & Spiegel, S. (2003). Searching for commonalities in human judgement: The parametric unimodel and its dual mode alternatives. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 1-48.
17. Kerkhof, P. (1999). Applying the unimodel to political persuasion. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 137-140.
18. Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.
19. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
20. Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.
21. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
22. Petty, R. E., Wheeler, S. C., & Bizer, G. Y. (1999). Is there one persuasion process or more? Lumping versus splitting in attitude change theories. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 156-163.
23. Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H.-P., Spiegel, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Informational Length and Order of Presentation as Determinants of Persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 458-469.
24. Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2004). Relevance Override: On the Reduced Impact of 'Cues' Under High-Motivation Conditions of Persuasion Studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 251-264.
25. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and the complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
26. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227-236.
27. Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgement and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331-376). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28. Zaller, J. (1987). The diffusion of political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 821-833.
29. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30. Ziegler, R., von Schwichow, A., & Diehl, M. (2005). Matching the message source to attitude functions: Implications for biased processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 645-653.