Ease of Retrieval Effects in Persuasion: A Self-Validation Analysis

Abstract

Three studies are reported examining a new explanation for ease of retrieval effects in persuasion. In each study, participants read a persuasive communication and were induced to generate either a low or high number of favorable or unfavorable thoughts in response. In conflict with the assumptions of most previous studies, the authors predicted and found that ease of retrieval effects occur primarily under high rather than low-elaboration conditions. Under high-elaboration conditions, people were more influenced by their thoughts when few rather than many were retrieved (ease of retrieval effect), and this was mediated by the confidence participants had in those thoughts. These findings are consistent with the self-validation hypothesis. Under low-elaboration conditions, participants based judgments more on the actual number of thoughts generated, reflecting a numerosity heuristic.

Relying on Accessible Content Versus Accessibility Experiences: The Case of Processing Capacity

“…Although this correspondence in findings is conceptually sound due to the functional similarities of processing motivation and processing capacity (e.g., Chen & Chaiken, 1999;Petty & Cacioppo, 1986;Fiske & Neuberg, 1990;Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999), one may reasonably ask how the present findings relate to other prior research endeavors that showed the reverse effect: Reliance on accessibility experiences in conditions of high but not low processing motivation (Wänke & Bless, 2000;Tormala et al, 2002). We think that both a methodological and conceptual explanation may account for this (seeming) inconsistency.…”

“…We started out from the observation that despite the prominence of the ease-of-retrieval heuristic, little empirical evidence is available regarding factors that moderate individuals' reliance on their retrieval experiences (for exceptions, Rothman & Schwarz, 1998;Dijksterhuis et al, 1999;Tormala et al, 2002;Ruder & Bless, 2003). In particular, we were not aware of any evidence on the potential role of processing capacity as a moderator of the use of accessibility experiences in judgment formation.…”

“…Intriguingly, this argument suggests that what appeared to be an inconsistency in findings with respect to the moderating impact of processing motivation (Rothman & Schwarz, 1998;Grayson & Schwarz, 1999;Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 1999;Florack & Zoabi, 2003;Haddock, 2002;vs. Wänke & Bless, 2000;Tormala et al, 2002) might have been systematic variation upon different attributional mechanisms. This post-hoc hypothesis remains to be tested.…”

“…Reliance on the experience of ease or difficulty was found to be likely both for people low in processing motivation (Rothman & Schwarz, 1998;Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 1999;Grayson & Schwarz, 1999;Florack & Zoabi, 2003; for related evidence in the domain of personal interest, see Haddock, 2002) and for people high in processing motivation (Wänke & Bless, 2000;Tormala, Petty, & Briñol, 2002).…”

Exploring the hardship of ease: Subjective and objective effort in the ease-of-processing paradigm

“…In fact, there is growing evidence that subjectively experienced effort is only one of many variables that can influence judgments in the ''ease-of-retrieval paradigm''. Thus, literature shows that judgment effects in this paradigm are influenced by variables such as imagined effort (Wänke et al 1997), the difference between expected and experienced effort (Raghubir and Menon 2005;Hansen and Wänke in press), or confidence in the information conveyed by one's own thoughts (Tormala et al 2002). Examining the role of these variables may help understand why the mediation from the manipulation to the judgment effects via subjective effort was not significant in the full mediation model.…”