Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.

Chaiken, Shelly

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752

Cited by 3,968 publications

(3,088 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

127

Mentioning

2,857

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas argument strength is a key factor in classic persuasion theories (Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), little is known about its influence in narrative persuasion. To address this research lacuna, a repeated-measures experiment was conducted in which argument strength and narrativity were manipulated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This state of transportation, rather than the elaboration of arguments (cf., Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), is considered to play a key role in narrative persuasion. In contrast to theory and research on non-narrative communication (Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), narrative transportation theory suggests that argument strength plays a minor role in narrative persuasion (e.g., Green & Brock, 2002; Slater, 2002). One of the possible causes put forward to explain the minor role of argument strength is that when transported into a story, recipients lack sufficient working memory resources to scrutinize arguments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Nonetheless, classical persuasion research, which often relied on dual-process models like the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) or the heuristic systematic model (Chaiken, 1980), constitutes an important background for explorations on argument strength. Both models propose that the extent to which arguments are processed varies from not really elaborating on the arguments’ validity (in favor of peripheral cues such as characteristics of the message source) to entirely elaborating on it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories

Schreiner

Appel

Isberner

et al. 2017

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These contrasts are discussed in Bruner (1986); Chaiken (1980); Epstein (1994);Freud (1900Freud ( /1976; Margolis (1987); Metcalfe and Mischel (1999); Petty & Cacioppo (1986); Posner and Snyder (1975); Pyszczynski and Greenberg (1987); Reber (1993);Wegner (1994);Wilson (in press);.…”

Section: Context Dependent Context Independentmentioning

confidence: 99%

The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.

Haidt

2001

Psychological Review

5,595

2,499

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is thought to be caused by moral reasoning. Four reasons are given for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post-hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to rationalist models. The model is a social model in that it de-emphasizes the private reasoning done by individuals, emphasizing instead the importance of social and cultural influences. The model is an intuitionist model in that it states that moral judgment is generally the result of quick, automatic evaluations (intuitions). The model is more consistent than rationalist models with recent findings in social, cultural, evolutionary, and biological psychology, as well as anthropology and primatology.

show abstract

“…Posteriormente, las investigaciones en el cambio de actitudes mostraron que el aprendizaje de un mensaje no siempre lleva a una modificación de las actitudes y, además, que estas pueden cambiar aun cuando una persona no aprenda el contenido del mensaje (Chaiken, 1980;Petty, Ostrom & Brock, 1981). Así se dio paso a un enfoque del cambio de actitudes basado en la idea de que las personas son sujetos activos en el proceso comunicativo y, por tanto, interpretan y responden a la propuesta recibida, independientemente de la intención que esta posee (Greenwald, 1968).…”

Section: Cambio De Actitudesunclassified

El Estudio de las Preguntas Retóricas en el Cambio de Actitudes

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La investigación actual en psicología social ha mostrado que las preguntas retóricas (PRs) en contextos comunicativos afectan las actitudes que las personas tienen sobre un objeto, llevando a evaluaciones más positivas o negativas de él. La principal explicación de este efecto es que las PRs aumentan la elaboración cognitiva, lo que permite al receptor de la información distinguir la fuerza de los argumentos presentados en una propuesta. Como consecuencia, las personas pueden guiar sus pensamientos favorables o desfavorables en respuesta a ellas. El presente trabajo revisa la literatura sobre cambio de actitud y PRs e identifica en ella una serie de limitaciones procedimentales y de contenido. Se discute que controlando dichas limitaciones se pueden obtener nuevos resultados y, tal vez más importante, proponer nuevas explicaciones para ellos. Finalmente, se plantean nuevas áreas de investigación y potenciales aplicaciones de los resultados.Palabras clave: actitudes, cambio, preguntas retóricas, revisión Current research in social psychology has shown that rhetorical questions (RQs) in communicative contexts affect the attitudes that people have about an object, leading either to positive or negative attitudes towards it. The main explanation for this effect is that RQs increase cognitive elaboration, which allows the receiver of the information to distinguish the strength of the arguments presented. As a consequence, people can guide their judgments based on the positive or negative thoughts generated as a response to RQs. This paper reviews the literature on attitude change and RQs and identifies procedural and content limitations not previously under control. It is discussed that controlling these limitations would make it possible to obtain new effects and potentially new explanations to them. In the final section new avenues for research and professional applications are proposed. Keywords: attitudes, change, rhetorical questions, revisionLas preguntas retóricas (PRs) corresponden a aquellas que sugieren una cierta respuesta de manera implícita en su conformación lingüística (Howard, 1990;Petty, Cacioppo & Heesacker, 1981;Zillmann, 1972) o, dicho de otro modo, corresponden a una afirmación con formato interrogativo (Domitrescu, 1992;Escandell, 1984;Gutiérrez, 1998;Igualada, 1994). Por ejemplo, la pregunta ¿A quién no le gustaría ganar la lotería? es retórica, dado que la afirmación implícita es "A todo el mundo le gustaría ganar la lotería". Dado que preguntar es una herramienta lingüística común en la interacción humana, el uso de este tipo de preguntas puede realizarse en todo contexto en el que sea necesario transmitir información a una persona o grupo. Su uso es bastante frecuente en diferentes campos profesionales, como la publicidad (Howard, 1991) o la terapia (Barraca, 2009;Ellis, 1962), lo que sugiere que es útil para cambiar opiniones y actitudes en las personas que las reciben. Sin embargo, la psicología social ha descubierto que la presencia de PRs puede tanto aumentar como reducir el cambio de ac...

show abstract

Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.

Cited by 3,968 publications

References 30 publications

Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories

Argument Strength and the Persuasiveness of Stories

The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.

El Estudio de las Preguntas Retóricas en el Cambio de Actitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About