Expanding the Persuasive Arguments Explanation of the Polarity Shift: A Linear Discrepancy Model

Boster, Franklin J.; Mayer, Michael; Hunter, John E.; Hale, Jerold L.

doi:10.1080/23808985.1980.11923801

Cited by 18 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As this discrepancy increases, attitudes change proportionally toward the message's advocated position (e.g., French, 1956;Hunter et al, 1976). This model is consistent with data obtained in many attitude and opinion change experiments (e.g., Danes, Hunter, & Woelfel, 1978;Hovland & Pritzker, 1957) and group decisions (e.g., Boster, Fryrear, Mongeau, & Hunter, 1982;Boster, Hunter, & Hale, 1991;Boster et al, 1980). The following hypothesis is proposed:…”

Section: Linear Discrepancy Model Of Attitude Changesupporting

confidence: 55%

“…Such theories include the information processing model (e.g., Boster, Mayer, Hunter, & Hale, 1980;French, 1956), information integration theory (e.g., Anderson, 1981), and social judgment theory (e.g., Sherif & Hovland, 1961). This paper expands on how knowledge of others' interpretations may change how people interpret messages, and subsequently change their attitudes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the Influence of Others on Perceptions of a Message's Advocacy: Testing a Two-Step Model

Smith¹,

Boster

2009

Communication Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asch proposed that contextual information changes how people interpret objects under evaluation. This paper extended his insight by merging rangeÁfrequency theory and the linear discrepancy model into a two-step model of social influence. In the first step, people interpret a message's advocated position differently with knowledge of how other people interpreted the message than without this knowledge. In the second step, peoples' interpretations influence how their attitudes change toward the message's recommendations. A two-step model was proposed: (a) knowing what bias other people thought a newspaper article presents affected how participants perceive the extremity of this article's advocated position, and (b) participants' interpretations influenced how they changed their attitudes toward the article's topic. The results from this first experiment were consistent with the two-step model. A second experiment shows that the degree of ambiguity in a message can increase or inhibit this effect. Together, these studies provide insight into how public opinions may serve as contextual influences on people's perceptions of the issues at hand and their responses to them.

show abstract

Section: Linear Discrepancy Model Of Attitude Changesupporting

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the Influence of Others on Perceptions of a Message's Advocacy: Testing a Two-Step Model

Smith¹,

Boster

2009

Communication Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent evidence strongly supports this explanation of the choice shift (Boster, Mayer, Hunter & Hale, 1980;Burnstein, Vinokur & Trope, 1973;Ebbeson & Bowers, 1974;Knowles, 1976;Morgan & Aram, 1975;Vinokur & Burnstein, 1974, 1978a, 1978b.…”

Section: Persuasive Arguments Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 73%

Explaining choice shift: An effects coded model

Mayer

1985

Communication Monographs

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Because group argument is viewed as an interactive, collaborative, public activity, it is assumed that arguments voiced by several group members for a given outcome is an important influence factor. Certainly past research findings have shown how member support, especially majority rule, can influence group outcomes (Alderton, 1981;Asch, 1951Asch, , 1956Boster & Mayer, 1984;Boster, Mayer, Hunter, & Hale, 1980;Davis, 1973;Nemeth, 1977;Nemeth & Wachtler, 1974). Additionally, McPhee, Poole, and Seibold (1981) found that "groups decide, not on the basis of information or arguments alone, but also with an eye to what particular members say, and to what proportion of a group agrees with a proposal" (p. 274).…”

Section: Elaborated Si-based Modelmentioning

confidence: 91%

Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence

Meyers

1989

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persuasive Arguments Theory (PAT) is a noninteractional theory of group decision-making that predicts postdiscussion shifts (polarization/choice shifts) from the cognitive arguments individuals generate prior to discussion. PAT relegates interaction to a "display channel"; it is considered an efficient, but not necessary, mechanism for displaying members' cognitive arguments in group discussion. The principal PAT predictor model incorporates four primary elements: (a) cognitive arguments, (b) cognitive argument novelty ratings, (c) cognitive argument persuasiveness ratings, and (d) a weighted-averaging combinatory formula. This model is utilized to predict individual and group shifts produced in group discussion. Following a review, critique, and alternative interaction-based explanation of the argument-decision shift link, two models, each increasingly more interactionoriented, are advanced to test the PAT perspective on argument. Results of the tests revealed that although the initial model was not a significantly better predictor of postdiscussion shifts than the PAT model, the second elaborated model demonstrated superior predictive ability at some levels of analysis. Implications for PAT and for the role of communication in determining decision shifts are discussed.

show abstract

Expanding the Persuasive Arguments Explanation of the Polarity Shift: A Linear Discrepancy Model

Cited by 18 publications

References 24 publications

Understanding the Influence of Others on Perceptions of a Message's Advocacy: Testing a Two-Step Model

Understanding the Influence of Others on Perceptions of a Message's Advocacy: Testing a Two-Step Model

Explaining choice shift: An effects coded model

Testing persuasive argument theory's predictor model: Alternative interactional accounts of group argument and influence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About