Communicator discrepancy, stimulus ambiguity, and influence

Abstract

Both Sherif and Hovland's (1961) judgmental theory and Festinger's (1957) dissonance theory (particularly as mterpreted by Festmger & Aronson, i960, and Aronson, Turner, & Carlsmith, 1963) predict a curviknear relationship between mfluence and coimnumcator-commumcatee discrepancy According to the judgmental mterpretation, a commumcation, like an external anchor, produces mcreasmg positive influence (assimilation) with moderate discrepancy, and decreasmg influence or possibly negative influence (contrast) with more extreme discrepancy As long as a communication is m the latitude of acceptance, mcreasmg discrepancy will produce mcreasmg change, but when a communication is m the more discrepant latitude of rejection, mcreasmg discrepancy will produce decreasmg change The latitude of acceptance is operationally mdexed m terms of the range of positions that the mdividual considers acceptable, and the latitude of rejection in terms of the range of positions that the mdividual considers objectionable Accordmg to the dissonance interpretation, increasing commimicator-commumcatee discrepancy produces mcreasmg amounts of dissonance that theoretically can be reduced m any of four ways conformity to the communicator's point of view, disparagement of the communicator, persuasion of the communicator that he is mcorrect, obtamed social support from other like-minded individuals In most laboratory experiments Ss are not allowed to talk either to the communicator or to other Ss, thus, the latter two modes of dissonance reduction are not available This leaves conformity and disparagement as the only possibilities At the moderate levels of discrepancy, mcreasmg discrepancy theoretically results m mcreasmg conformity, and at the extreme levels of discrepan-1 Now at the Umversity of North Carohna

Parent-adolescent communication about sex and birth control: A conceptual framework

“…Research in social psychology suggests that attributions of expertise are adversely affected by the source's taking a position that is highly discrepant from that of the receiver (for example, Insko, Murashima, and Saiyadain, 1966). Nonverbal cues during communication also affect perceptions of source expertise.…”

Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change.

“…Insko et al (1966) have pointed to the obvious fact that differing results may be obtained simply by focusing upon differing segments of the communicator-communicatee discrepancy dimension. Many of the studies which found increasing linear relationships might have conceivably found curvilinear relationships if the discrepancy dimension had been explored into the more extreme regions.…”

“…However, one study found a decreasing linear re-614 lation (Cohen, 1959), and several studies have found a curvilinear relation (Aronson et al, 1963;Freedman, 1964;Insko et al, 1966).…”

Attitudes and Opinions

“…Discrepancy.-Significant curvilinear relationships between discrepancy and opinion change have been found in a variety of settings: Bochner & Insko (30) regarding the hours of sleep required per night; Koslin, Stoops & Loh (143) using the Witkin rod and frame apparatus; Insko, Murashima & Saiya dain (112) in two experiments on numerosity judgmentsj Brewer & Crano (35) on opinions toward the U.S. space program; and Johnson (121) regard ing the subject's self-concept. In some studies, discrepancy has also been found to have a significant positive linear effect upon opinion change across all conditions (30,70,121).…”