Balancing and extremity effects in reactions of receiver to source and content of communications1

Abstract

This study is one of a senes designed to mvestigate the imphcations of a stmctural balance model of communication effects (Feather, 1964(Feather, , 1967a This model uses the mathematical theory of lmear graphs to represent the basic communication situation m which a source (S) is presenting a commumcation (C) about an issue (I) to a receiver (R) These four elements of the communication situation are mapped mto pomts of a lmear graph, and attitiidmal and unit relations between the elements are mapped mto lmes of the graph The model, as presented m Figure 1, specifies eight signed digraphs (s-digraphs) m which all semicycles are positive (Cartwnght & Harary, 1956) All of the s-digraphs m Figure 1 are therefore completely balanced accordmg to Cartwright and Harary's reformulation of Heider's prmciple (1958) In these s-digraphs a straight lme represents an attitudmal relation and a bracket represents a unit relation. Sohd lines represent positive relations and dashed lmes represent negative relations This model has now been investigated in a number of studies (usually mvolvmg role-playmg) where the mterest has mamly focused upon whether Ss, given information about certam relations m the model, would predict the sign of other relations m accordance with the prmciple of balance (Feather, 1965a(Feather, , 1965b More recently attention has also been given to the problem of the strength of relations (Feather, 1966(Feather, , 1967b) Investigations of the model so far conducted have been reviewed m a recent paper (Feather, 1967a)

Attitudes and Opinions

“…In some studies this emerges as a main effect: in pleasantness ratings (77,78,196) , expectations about change (47) , and learning (265)(266)(267). In some studies this emerges as a main effect: in pleasantness ratings (77,78,196) , expectations about change (47) , and learning (265)(266)(267).…”

Effects of variations in source attitude, receiver attitude, and communication stand on reactions to source and content of communications1

“…Predictions about the strength of relations in tnads were based upon a discrepancy principle descnbed in recent publications (Feather, 1966, 1967b, Feather & JefFnes, 1967 In essence this principle states that when two relations m a tnad are of the same sign the third relation will be positive (by the balance principle) and will be stronger as the discrepancy between the two relations decreases When two relations in a tnad are of opposite sign the third relation will be negative (by the balance principle) and will be stronger as the discrepancy between the two relations increases That is, relations of the same sign that are close together in strength are associated with a strong positive third relation within a tnad, relations of diflFerent sign that are far apart in strength are associated with a strong negative third relation within a triad When applied to the structures in Figure 1 this principle would imply, for example, that given s-digraph c and considermg the R-I-C tnad, one would predict a strong negative R -» C attitudinal relation when R -^ I and C -»I are both strong, a moderately negative R ->^ C attitudinal relation when one of the R -»I and C -* I attitudmal relations is strong and the other moderate, and a relatively weak negative R -» C attitudinal relation when R ^ I and C -* I are both moderate m strength When the S-I-C tnad is considered m s-digraph c, one would predict a strong positive S -» C attitudmal relation when S -^ I and C -> I are either both strong or both moderate, and a relatively weak positive S->C attitudmal relation when one of the S-»I and C^I attitudmal relations is strong and the other moderate m strength Similar predictions were made for other triads represented in Figure 1 usmg the discrepancy pnnciple…”

“…The main efiEect of Commuiucabon Stand on credibility ratmgs was significant in the related study(Feather & Jeffnes, 1967), but in that study no information was given to subjects about the attitude of the source toward the…”

Media Credibility and Respondent Credulity With Respect To Watergate

“…Feather and Jeffries (1967) found that a source must present a positive communication to be perceived as credible by subjects with positive attitudes.…”

“…Feather and Jeffries (1967) found that a source must present a positive communication to be perceived as credible by subjects with positive attitudes. Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955) proposed an interaction between receiver attitude and the situation conveyed (message) in their conceptualization of incredulity as a function of the amount of incongruity present.…”