Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production

Brock, Timothy C.

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90031-5

Cited by 240 publications

(189 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…After receiving one of the 12 experimental manipulations and providing an opinion on the issue, respondents were immediately asked a ''thought listing'' question designed to tap the amount of issue-relevant thought generated in response to the experimental manipulations. This method involves asking people to list their thoughts or ideas-i.e., their ''cognitive responses''-relevant to the message topic (Brock 1967;Greenwald 1968). The idea is to tap the thoughts of subjects as they are exposed to potentially persuasive messages.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership

Bartels¹,

Mutz²

2009

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When and how can institutions lead public opinion? Scholarly controversy exists over whether even a highly esteemed institution such as the Supreme Court can move mass opinion. In this study we use an experimental design embedded within a representative national survey to examine these questions in a context involving multiple institutions and multiple issues. Our findings suggest that the Court's ability to move opinion is potent and based on multiple processes of persuasive influence. Congress's ability to move opinion, while conditional, is surprisingly more potent than previously understood. Moreover, opinion change in response to institutional endorsements is mediated by substantive political thought to a greater extent than heuristic explanations have suggested.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These thoughts can, in turn, affect people's opinions (Brock 1967;Greenwald 1968;Petty, Ostrom, and Brock 1981). Known within psychology as ''cognitive responses,'' these issue-relevant thoughts can be generated by knowing what position an institution has endorsed.…”

Section: Beyond Heuristic and Systematic Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership

Bartels¹,

Mutz²

2009

The Journal of Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rich imagination likely consumes cognitive resources or working memory resources that are not available for competing simultaneous cognitive tasks (Green & Brock, 2002). Thus, being transported into the story world is supposed to be incompatible with demanding cognitive-elaborative activities such as counterarguing (Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009; Dal Cin et al, 2004; Green & Brock, 2000; Slater & Rouner, 2002), which is known as a key obstacle to persuasive efforts (e.g., Brock, 1967; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Drawn into the story world, recipients might lack sufficient working memory resources to engage in a thorough analysis of the communication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories

Schreiner

Appel

Isberner

et al. 2017

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stories are a powerful means to change people’s attitudes and beliefs. The aim of the current work was to shed light on the role of argument strength (argument quality) in narrative persuasion. The present study examined the influence of strong versus weak arguments on attitudes in a low or high narrative context. Moreover, baseline attitudes, interindividual differences in working memory capacity, and recipients’ transportation were examined. Stories with strong arguments were more persuasive than stories with weak arguments. This main effect was qualified by a two-way interaction with baseline attitude, revealing that argument strength had a greater impact on individuals who initially were particularly doubtful toward the story claim. Furthermore, we identified a three-way interaction showing that argument strength mattered most for recipients who were deeply transported into the story world in stories that followed a typical narrative structure. These findings provide an important specification of narrative persuasion theory.

show abstract

“…É frequente nestes estudos recorrer-se à técnica de listagem de pensamentos (Brock, 1967;Greenwald, 1968), após o reportar das atitudes, pedindo-se aos participantes que reportem os pensamentos que tiveram enquanto foram confrontados com a situação persuasiva. A este respeito é tipicamente considerada a favorabilidade dos pensamentos (cotada pelo próprio ou por juízes independentes), analisando-se separadamente o número total de pensamentos favoráveis/positivos e desfavoráveis/ negativos ou recorrendo a um índice de favorabilidade criado pela proporção ou ratio de pensamentos favoráveis/positivos.…”

Section: Variáveis Tipicamente Associadas Ao Paradigmaunclassified

Dissociação de modos de processamento em persuasão

Garcia‐Marques

Silva

Loureiro

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoNeste artigo, apresentamos o paradigma subjacente à dissociação dos processos de mudança atitudinal (mudança por via central vs. periférica) Em 1981 Richard Petty e John Cacioppo realizam uma revisão dos estudos que até então tinham abordado a questão da mudança de atitude. Nesta obra os autores procuram explicar uma série de resultados aparentemente distintos e por vezes contraditórios sobre o efeito de diferentes variáveis na promoção de mudança de atitudes em contexto persuasivo. Os autores sugerem que estes resultados podem ser explicados ao se considerar que a mudança de atitude pode ocorrer por duas vias distintas: uma via central e uma via periférica (ver modelo ELM adiante 1 ). Mudanças ocorrem por uma via central quando se caracterizam pela extensiva ponderação das qualidades do objecto atitudinal e argumentos que sustentam Laboratório de Psicologia, 10(2): 205-221 (2012 Dissociação de modos de processamento em persuasãoTeresa Garcia-Marques Pedro P. Silva Filipe Loureiro ISPA -Instituto UniversitárioNota do autor: Este trabalho foi realizado como parte dos trabalhos do projecto PTDC/PSI-PCO/121925/2010 financiado pela FCT -Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia. A correspondência relativa a este artigo deverá ser enviada para: Teresa Garcia-Marques,

show abstract

Communication discrepancy and intent to persuade as determinants of counterargument production

Cited by 240 publications

References 17 publications

Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership

Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership

Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories

Dissociação de modos de processamento em persuasão

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About