A Meta-Analysis of the ELM's Argument Quality × Processing Type Predictions

Human Communication Research

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 501-534

  Carpenter, Christopher J ^a  

^a WESTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argument Quality; Dual Process; Elaboration Likelihood Model; Heuristic Systematic Model; Meta Analysis; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941732578     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/hcre.12054     Document Type: Article

References (153)

1. Anker, A., Reinhart, A., & Feeley, T. (2010). Meta-analysis of meta-analyses in communication: Comparing fixed effects and random effects analysis models. Communication Quarterly, 58, 257-278.
2. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1-62.
3. Bitner, M. J., & Obermiller, C. (1985). The elaboration likelihood model: Limitations and extensions in marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 420-425.
4. Bless, H., Mackie, D. M., & Schwarz, 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.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
6. Carpenter, C. J. (2012). A trim and fill examination of the extent of publication bias in communication research. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 41-55.
7. Carpenter, C. J., & Boster, F. J. (2013). Modeling the effects of processing effort and ability in response to persuasive message arguments. Communication Quarterly, 61, 413-430.
8. 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.
9. Chaiken, S., & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575-630.
10. Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32, 235-264.
11. Chung, S., Fink, E. L., & McLaughlin, M. B. (2011, November). Effects of evidence quality, source expertise, and personal involvement on attitude change: A conceptual replication of Petty, Cacioppo, and Goldman (1981). Paper presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
12. DeBono, K. G., & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, sources attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541-546.
13. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of assessing publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89-98.
14. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
15. Hafer, C. L., Reynolds, K. L., & Obertynski, M. A. (1996). Message comprehensibility and persuasion: Effects of complex language in counterattitudinal appeals to laypeople. Social Cognition, 14, 317-337.
16. Hamilton, M. A., Hunter, J. E., & Boster, F. J. (1993). The elaboration likelihood model as a theory of attitude formation: A mathematical analysis. Communication Theory, 3, 50-65.
17. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings (Vol., 2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
20. Johnson, B. T., Smith-McLallen, A., Killeya, L. A., & Levin, K. D. (2004). Truth or consequences: Overcoming resistance to persuasion with positive thinking. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 215-233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83-109.
22. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Lumsdaine, A. A., & Janis, I. L. (1953). Resistance to "counterpropaganda" produced by one-sided and two-sided "propaganda" presentations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 17, 311-318.
24. Miller, C. H., & Averbeck, J. M. (2013). Hedonic relevance and outcome relevant involvement. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 23, 1-35.
25. 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.
26. Mongeau, P. A., & Stiff, J. B. (1993). Specifying causal relationships in the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Theory, 3, 65-72.
27. Mongeau, P. A., & Williams, M. L. M. (1996, May). Argument quality and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
28. Morley, D. D. (1987). Subjective message constructs: A theory of persuasion. Communication Monographs, 54, 183-203.
29. O'Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediated states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13, 251-274.
30. O'Keefe, D. J. (2012). The argumentative structure of some persuasive appeal variations. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topic themes in argumentation theory: Twenty exploratory studies (pp. 291-306). New York, NY: Springer.
31. Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Westerman, C. Y. K., Orfgen, T., & Foregger, S. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33, 81-102.
32. Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4544-4562.
33. Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
34. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
35. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
36. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-374.
37. 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.
38. Petty, R. E., Kasmer, J. A., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1987). Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to Stiff's critique of the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Monographs, 54, 233-249.
39. Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., Bizer, G. Y., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89). Boston, MA: Pearson City.
40. 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.
41. Reimer, T., Mata, R., & Stoecklin, M. (2004). The use of heuristics in persuasion: Deriving cues on source expertise from argument quality. Current Research in Social Psychology, 10, 69-84.
42. Reynolds, R. (1997). A validation test of a message elaboration measure. Communication Research Reports, 14, 269-278.
43. Schooler, J. (2011). Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature, 470, 437.
44. Stiff, J. B. (1986). Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta-analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes. Communication Monographs, 53, 75-89.
45. Stiff, J. B., & Boster, F. J. (1987). Cognitive processing: Additional thoughts and a reply to Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt, and Cacioppo. Communication Monographs, 54, 250-256.
46. van Dijk, R., Hustinx, L., & Hoeken, H. (2003). A normative and empirical approach to Petty and Cacioppo's "strong" and "weak" arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 265-270). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sic Sat.
47. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1-48.
48. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
49. Worth, L. T., & Mackie, D. M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Social Cognition, 5, 76-94.
50. Zhao, X., Strasser, A., Cappella, J. N., Lerman, C., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 5, 48-75.
51. Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Ruther, A. (2002). Multiple source characteristics and persuasion: Source inconsistency as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 496-508.
52. Aaker, J. L., & Maheswaran, D. (1997). The effect of cultural orientation on persuasion. The Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 315-328.
53. Ajzen, I., Brown, T. C., & Rosenthal, L. H. (1996). Information bias in contingent valuation: Effects of personal relevance, quality of information, and motivational orientation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 30, 43-57.
54. Albarracín, D., & Kumkale, G. T. (2003). Affect as information in persuasion: A model of affect identification and discounting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 453-469.
55. Andrews, J. C., & Shimp, T. A. (1990). Effects of involvement, argument strength, and source characteristics on central and peripheral processing of advertising. Psychology & Marketing, 7, 195-214.
56. Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.
57. 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.
58. Banas, J., Turner, M. M., & Shulman, H. (2012). A test of competing hypotheses of the effects of mood on persuasion. Communication Quarterly, 60, 143-164.
59. Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 203-214.
60. Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 331-345.
61. Bless, H., Mackie, D. M., & Schwarz, 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.
62. 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.
63. Bohner, G., Rank, S., Reinhard, M. A., Einwiller, S., Erb, H. P. (1998). Motivational determinants of systematic processing: Expectancy moderates effects of desired confidence on processing effort. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 185-206.
64. Booth-Butterfield, S., & Gutowski, C. (1993). Message modality and source credibility can interact to affect argument processing. Communication Quarterly, 41, 77-89.
65. Burnkrant, R. E., & Howard, D. J. (1984). Effects of the use of introductory rhetorical questions versus statements on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1218-1230.
66. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1985). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: The role of message repetition. In L. Alwitt & A. Mitchell (Eds.), Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 91-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1989). Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 3-12.
68. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F, & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.
69. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
70. Carpenter, C. J., & Henningsen, D. D. (2011). The effects of passive verb-constructed arguments on persuasion. Communication Research Reports, 28, 52-61.
71. 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.
72. Chebat, J. C., Gelinas-Chebat, C., Hombourger, S., & Woodside, A. G. (2003). Testing consumers' motivation and linguistic ability as moderators of advertising readability. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 599-624.
73. Chu, S. C., & Kamal, S. (2008). The effect of perceived blogger credibility and argument quality on message elaboration and brand attitudes: An exploratory study. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8, 26-37.
74. Chung, S., Fink, E. L., & McLaughlin, M. B. (2011, November). Effects of evidence quality, source expertise, and personal involvement on attitude change: A conceptual replication of Petty, Cacioppo, and Goldman (1981). Paper presented at the 67th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
75. Cline, T. W., & Kellaris, J. J. (1999). The joint impact of humor and argument strength in a print advertising context: A case for weaker arguments. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 69-86.
76. Darke, P. R., & Chaiken, S. (2005). The pursuit of self-interest: Self-interest bias in attitude judgment and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 864-883.
77. DeBono, K. G. (1992). Pleasant scents and persuasion: An information processing approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 910-919.
78. 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.
79. DeBono, K. G., & Klein, C. (1993). Source expertise and persuasion: The moderating role of recipient dogmatism. Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 167-173.
80. DeBono, K. G., & McDermott, J. B. (1994). Trait anxiety and persuasion: Individual differences in information processing strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 395-407.
81. DeBono, K. G., & Snyder, A. (1992). Repressors, sensitizers, source expertise, and persuasion. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 263-272.
82. Escalas, J. E., & Luce, M. F. (2004). Understanding the effects of process-focused versus outcome-focused thought in response to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 274-285.
83. Evans, L. M., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Self-guide framing and persuasion: Responsibility increasing message processing to ideal levels. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 313-324.
84. Fabrigar, L. R., Priester, J. P., 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.
85. Gammoh, B. S., Voss, K. E., & Chakraborty, G. (2006). Consumer evaluation of brand alliance signals. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 465-486.
86. Gibbons, P., Busch, J., & Bradac, J. J. (1991). Powerful versus powerless language: Consequences for persuasion, impression formation, and cognitive response. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 115-133.
87. Green, M. C., Garst, J., Brock, T. C., & Chung, S. (2006). Fact versus fiction labeling: Persuasion parity despite heightened scrutiny of fact. Media Psychology, 8, 267-285.
88. Hafer, C. L., Reynolds, K. L, & Obertynski, M. A. (1996). Message comprehensibility and persuasion: Effects of complex language in counterattitudinal appeals to laypeople. Social Cognition, 14, 317-337.
89. Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 239-260.
90. Heesacker, M. (1986). Counseling pretreatment and the elaboration likelihood model of attitude change. Journal of Counseling, 33, 107-114.
91. Heesacker, M., & Petty, R. E. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653-666.
92. Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (2003). Uncertainty orientation in the group context: Categorization effects on persuasive message processing. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 291-312.
93. Howard, D. J. (1990). Rhetorical question effects on message processing and persuasion: The role of information availability and the elicitation of judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 217-239.
94. Hustinx, L., van Enschot, R., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model: An empirical study of strong and weak arguments in a persuasive message. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 651-657). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sic Sat.
95. Johnson, B. T. (1994). Effects of outcome-relevant involvement and prior information on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 556-579.
96. Johnston, L., & Coolen, P. (1995). A dual processing approach to stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 660-673.
97. Karmarkar, U. R., & Tormala, Z. L. (2009). Believe me, I have no idea what I'm talking about: The effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 1033-1049.
98. Karson, E. J., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (2001). An experimental investigation of internet advertising and the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 23, 53-72.
99. Klein, C. T. F., & Webster, D. M. (2000). Individual differences in argumentative scrutiny as motivated by need for cognitive closure. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22, 119-129.
100. Kuykendall, D., & Keating, J. P. (1990). Mood and persuasion: Evidence for the differential influence of positive and negative states. Psychology & Marketing, 7, 1-9.
101. Leippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
102. Lowrey, T. M. (1998). The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 187-206.
103. 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.
104. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812-822.
105. Martin, B. A. S., Lang, B., & Wong, S. (2003). Conclusion explicitness in advertising: The moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) and argument quality (AQ) on persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 32, 557-565.
106. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Majority versus minority influence: When, not whether, source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 313-330.
107. Martin, R., Hewstone, M., & Martin, P. Y. (2007). Systematic and heuristic processing of majority and minority-endorsed messages: The effects of varying outcome relevance and levels of orientation on attitude and message processing. Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 43-56.
108. Miniard, P. W., Bhatla, S., Lord, K. R., Dickson, P. R., & Unnava, H. R. (1991). Picture-based persuasion processes and the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 92-107.
109. 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.
110. Mitra, A. (1995). Price cue utilization in product evaluations: The moderating role of motivation and attribute information. Journal of Business Research, 33, 187-195.
111. Moons, W. G., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Thinking straight while seeing red: The influence of anger on information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 706-720.
112. Moore, D. J., & Reardon, R. (1987). Source magnification: The role of multiple sources in the processing of advertising appeals. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 412-417.
113. Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 85-99.
114. Moscowitz, G. B. (1996). The mediational effects of attributions and information processing in minority social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 47-66.
115. Nelson, T. E., & Garst, J. (2005). Values-based political messages and persuasion: Relationships among speaker, recipient, and evoked values. Political Psychology, 26, 489-515.
116. Nienhuis, A. E., Manstead, A. S. R., & Spears, R. (2001). Multiple motives and persuasive communication: Creative elaboration as a result of impression motivation and accuracy motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 118-132.
117. Oh, H., & Jasper, C. R. (2006). Processing of apparel advertisements: Application and extension of elaboration likelihood model. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24, 15-32.
118. Park, D. H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11, 125-148.
119. Park, H. S., Levine, T. R., Westerman, C. Y. K., Orfgen, T., & Foregger, S. (2007). The effects of argument quality and involvement type on attitude formation and attitude change: A test of dual-process and social judgment predictions. Human Communication Research, 33, 81-102.
120. Pechmann, C., & Esteban, G. (1994). Persuasion processes associated with direct comparative and noncomparative advertising and implications for advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 403-432.
121. 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.
122. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
123. 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.
124. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.
125. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-146.
126. Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & White, P. H. (1999). Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 19-34.
127. Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81-92.
128. Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., Williams, K. D., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579-582.
129. Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., Heesacker, M., Brock, T. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). The effects of recipient posture on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 209-222.
130. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637-654.
131. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on message elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 408-421.
132. Priester, J. R., Godek, J., Nayakankuppum, D. J., & Park, K. (2004). Brand congruity and comparative advertising: When and why comparative advertisements lead to greater elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 115-123.
133. Puckett, J. M., Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Fischer, D. L. (1983). The relative impact of age and attractiveness stereotypes on persuasion. Journal of Gerontology, 38, 340-343.
134. Sinclair, R. C., Lovsin, T. K., & Moore, S. E. (2007). Mood state, issue involvement, and argument strength on responses to persuasive appeals. Psychological Reports, 101, 739-753.
135. Sinclair, R. C., Mark, M. M., & Clore, G. L. (1994). Mood-related persuasion depends on (mis)attributions. Social Cognition, 12, 309-326.
136. Sinclair, R. C., Moore, S. E., Mark, M. M., Soldat, A. S., & Lavis, C. A. (2010). Incidental moods, source likeability, and persuasion: Liking motivates message elaboration in happy people. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 940-961.
137. Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 257-268.
138. Smith, S. M., & Shaffer, D. R. (1991). The effects of good moods on systematic processing: "willing but not able, or able but not willing?" Motivational Emotion, 15, 243-279.
139. Smith, S. M., & Shaffer, D. R. (2000). Vividness can undermine or enhance message processing: The moderating role of vividness congruency. Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 769-779.
140. Soldat, A. S., & Sinclair, R. C. (2001). Colors, smiles, and frowns: External affective cues can directly affect responses to persuasive communications in a mood-like manner without affecting mood. Social Cognition, 19, 469-490.
141. Sorrentino, R. M., Bobocel, R., Gitta, M. Z., Olson, J. M., & Hewitt, E. C. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: Individual differences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 357-371.
142. Swasy, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1985). Examining the target of receiver elaborations: Rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 877-886.
143. Tobin, S. J., Capuozzo, K. I., & Raymundo, M. M. (2013). The effects of primed causal uncertainty and causal importance on persuasion. Social Influence, 7, 269-284.
144. 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.
145. van Dijk, R., Hustinx, L., & Hoeken, H. (2003). A normative and empirical approach to Petty and Cacioppo's "strong" and "weak" arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 265-270). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Sic Sat.
146. 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.
147. Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E., & Bizer, G. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and attitude change: Situation and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 787-797.
148. White, P. H., & Harkins, S. G. (1994). Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 790-807.
149. Worth, L. T., & Mackie, D. M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Social Cognition, 5, 76-94.
150. Yoon, C., Lee, M. P., & Danziger, S. (2007). The effects of optimal time of day on persuasion processes in older adults. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 475-495.
151. Ziegler, R., & Diehl, M. (2001). The effect of multiple source information on message scrutiny: The case of source expertise and likability. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 60, 253-263.
152. Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Ruther, A. (2002). Multiple source characteristics and persuasion: Source inconsistency as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 496-508.
153. Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., Zigon, R., & Fett, T. (2004). Source consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus: The three dimensions of the Kelley ANOVA model in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 352-364.