The use of heuristics in persuasion: Deriving cues on source expertise from argument quality

Current Research in Social Psychology

Volumn 10, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 69-83

  Reimer, Torsten ^a,b   Mata, Rui ^c   Stoecklin, Markus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 8844269513     PISSN: 10887423     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (27)

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. 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.
3. 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.
4. Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (1999). Paradigms, processes, parsimony, and perdictive power: Arguments for a generic dual-process model. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 113-118.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuassion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
6. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgement. 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. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression / Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Erb, H.-P., Kruglanski, A. W., Chun, W. Y., Pierro, 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, 1-47.
12. Gigerenzer, G., & Regier, T. (1996). How do we tell an association from a rule? Comment on Sloman (1996). Psychological Bulletin, 119, 23-26.
13. Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry 10, 83-109.
14. O'Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and minipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, August, 251-274.
15. O'Keefe, D. J. (2001). Persuassion. In T. O. Sloane (ed.), Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (pp.575-583). Oxford: University Press.
16. O'Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing in persuasive messages: A meta-analytical review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 22, p.209-249). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
17. 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.
18. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involment as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Scial Psychology, 41, 847-855.
19. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 323-390). New York: Oxford University Press.
20. 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.
21. Reimer, T. (2003). Direkte und indirekte Effeckte der Argumentqualität: Der Einfluß der Argumentstärke auf die wahrgenommene Expertise eines Kommunikators [Direct and indirect effects of argument quality: The impact of argument strength on the perceived expertise of a communicator]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 34, 243-255.
22. Reimer, T., & Raab, M. (2004) Deriving cues from messages: Effects of argument quality on the evaluation of proponents. Unpublished manuscript.
23. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benifits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk analysis, 20, 195-203.
24. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trust and knowledge. Risk analysis, 20, 713-719.
25. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
26. Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1989). Person memory and judgement. Psychological Review, 96, 58-83.
27. 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.