Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment.

Abstract

High- and low-task-importance Ss read a strong or weak unambiguous message or an ambiguous message that was attributed to a high- or low-credibility source. Under low task importance, heuristic processing of the credibility cue was the sole determinant of Ss' attitudes, regardless of argument ambiguity or strength. When task importance was high and message content was unambiguous, systematic processing alone determined attitudes when this content contradicted the validity of the credibility heuristic; when message content did not contradict this heuristic, systematic and heuristic processing determined attitudes independently. Finally, when task importance was high and message content was ambiguous, heuristic and systematic processing again both influenced attitudes. Yet, source credibility affected persuasion partly through its impact on the valence of systematic processing, confirming that heuristic processing can bias systematic processing when evidence is ambiguous. Implications for persuasion and other social judgment phenomena are discussed.

Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing.

“…Importantly, further analyses revealed that the attitudinal impact of this heuristic was mediated in part by more effortful processing. Just as other heuristic cues in the service of other motives have been shown to bias subsequent processing (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994), impression-motivated participants' heuristic processing of the partner attitude information biased the evaluative nature of their systematic processing in a direction consistent with their partners' opinions.…”

“…Although heuristic and systematic processing may occur alone, they may also co-occur in particular ways (Chaiken et al, 1989). For example, the evaluative implication of a heuristic cue may bias the nature of systematic processing (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). To illustrate, favorable consensus cue information may lead our consumer to interpret ambiguous information about the automobile more favorably, because the consensus cue establishes the expectation of encountering positive information about the car.…”

“…Neither the level of accuracy nor impression motivation was purposely varied in the present studies, in which it was reasonably assumed that all participants were highly motivated. Whereas high and low accuracy (e.g., Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994) and defense motivation (Liberman & Chaiken, 1992) have been studied, differences in the heuristic versus systematic nature of impression-motivated processing as a function of varying levels of motivation have yet to be examined. Thus, for instance, had impression motivation been lower in the present context, the partner attitude information might have had only a direct, rather than mediated, impact on impression-motivated participants' attitudes.…”

A Influência do Constrangimento do Consumidor no Processo de Compra

“…Para minimizar esse tempo, o consumidor utiliza atalhos na tomada de decisão, tornandoa mais heurística (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). Neste caso, o constrangimento serve como um limitador de recursos de processamento de informação, uma vez que tanto expressar quanto suprimir emoções resultam num aumento de carga cognitiva (Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, Westphal, & Coifman, 2004).…”

First International Conference on Resource Efficiency in Interorganizational Networks – ResEff 2013 –

“…We will examine how consumers perceive, assess and process label information. The three determined factors "Attributes of bio-based plastics", "Environment and examination" and "Renewable resources" will be used in the context of the Heuristic-Systematic Model (Chaiken & Trope, 1999;Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994;Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).…”