Antecedents of Message Processing in Persuasion: Traditional and Emergent Perspectives

Social and Personality Psychology Compass

Volumn 8, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 595-607

  Clark, Jason K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84908165077     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17519004     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12140     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. 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.
2. Bassili, J. N., & Fletcher, J. F. (1991). Response-time measurement in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 331-346.
3. Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: The relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 566-586.
4. Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2009). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 49-96.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive responses, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
7. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, argument recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
9. 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.
10. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
11. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social and Cognitive Psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
12. Clark, J. K., & Wegener, D. T. (2009). Source entitativity and the elaboration of persuasive messages: The roles of perceived efficacy and message discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 42-57.
13. Clark, J. K., & Wegener, D. T. (2013). Message position, information processing, and persuasion: The Discrepancy Motives Model. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 189-232). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14. Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008a). Attitude accessibility and message processing: The moderating role of message position. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 354-361.
15. Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008b). Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 565-577.
16. Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., Habashi, M. M., & Evans, A. T. (2012). Source expertise and persuasion: The effects of perceived opposition or support on message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 90-100.
17. Cohen, A. R. (1957). Need for cognition and order of communication as determinants of opinion change. In C. I. Hovland (Ed.), The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
18. Cohen, A. R., Stotland, E., & Wolfe, D. M. (1955). An experimental investigation of need for cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 291-294.
19. DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541-546.
20. Edwards, J. A. (2003). The interactive effects of processing preference and motivation on information processing: Causal uncertainty and the MBTI in a persuasion context. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 89-99.
21. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5-24.
22. Fabrigar, L. R., Priester, J. R., Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). The impact of attitude accessibility on elaboration of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 339-352.
23. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 247-282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Gross, S., Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Attitude certainty. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 215-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 308-319.
26. Heesacker, M., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653-666.
27. Holland, R. W., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2003). From repetition to conviction: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of attitude certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, p. 594-601.
28. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion and Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
30. Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361-372.
31. Kelley, H. H., & Lamb, T. W. (1957). Certainty of judgment and resistance to social influence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 137-139.
32. Krosnick, J. A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 297-308.
33. Maio, G. R., Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513-536.
34. Petrocelli, J. V., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 30-41.
35. Petty, R. E. (1997). The evolution of theory and research in social psychology: From single to multiple effect and process models. In C. McGarty & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The Message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on Mind in Society (pp. 268-290). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.
36. Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to meta-cognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 137-147.
37. Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2007). The role of metacognition in social judgment. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd edn. pp. 254-284). New York: Guilford.
38. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue-involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
39. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Contemporary and classic approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
40. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion. New York: Springer Verlag.
41. Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.) (1995). Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998a). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th edn. pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
43. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998b). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 227-240.
44. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874-884.
45. Petty, R. E., Wheeler, S. C., & Bizer, G. (2000). Matching effects in persuasion: An elaboration likelihood analysis (pp. 133-162). In G. Maio & J. Olson (Eds.), Why We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
47. Rhodes, N., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Edison, A., & Bradford, M. B. (2008). Attitude and norm accessibility affect processing of anti-smoking messages. Health Psychology, 27, S224-S232.
48. Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach. Philadelphia: Saunders.
49. 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.
50. Tobin, S. J., & Raymundo, M. M. (2009). Persuasion by causal arguments: The motivating role of perceived causal expertise. Social Cognition, 27, 105-127.
51. Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Attitude certainty: A review of past findings and emerging perspectives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 469-492.
52. Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Seger, C. R. (2008). When increased confidence yields increased thought: A confidence-matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 141-147.
53. Wan, E. W., & Rucker, D. D. (2013). Confidence and construal framing: When confidence increases versus decreases information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 977-992.
54. Weary, G., & Edwards, J. A. (1994). Individual differences in causal uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 308-318.
55. Wegener, D. T., Clark, J. K., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Not all stereotyping is created equal: Differential consequences of thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 42-59.
56. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood and message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
57. Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E., & Bizer, G. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 787-797.
58. Wood, W., Rhodes, N., & Biek, M. (1995). Working knowledge and attitude strength: An information processing analysis. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Ed.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 283-313). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.