Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high- and low-dogmatic persons.

Abstract

This experiment investigated the conditions that facilitate judgment of an argument's validity. One hundred and twenty high-and low-dogmatic subjects were matched by group for reasoning ability and randomized to positive-and negative-source conditions. Each subject judged the logical validity of 16 syllogisms which were counterbalanced on the basis of a pretest. Two hypotheses were tested: (a) when syllogisms are attributed to positive and negative sources, low dogmatics will make a significantly greater number of accurate judgments of validity than will high dogmatics; and (6) high dogmatics will make more accurate judgments of validity under conditions of positive sources and valid syllogisms and under conditions of negative sources and invalid syllogisms. Conversely, low dogmatics will be more accurate under conditions of positive sources and invalid syllogisms and under conditions of negative sources and valid syllogisms. A four-factor analysis of variance indicated support for both hypotheses. The results are discussed as consistent with Rokeach's dogmatism theory. In addition, the effect of certain syllogistic forms on the judgmental ability of high-and low-dogmatic subjects is considered.A number of prior studies (McGuire, 1960; Miller, 1969) have investigated variables that may potentially affect judgments of an argument's logical validity. The present study manipulated the attitude toward argumentative content of persons making the judgments, the credibility of sources to whom the arguments were attributed, and the cognitive style variable of dogmatism in order to determine their effects on the judgmental process.

Source credibility and syllogistic reasoning

“…In particular, the results of our study are consistent with studies showing source credibility effects based on characteristics such as honesty (Mills & Jellison, 1967;Priester & Petty, 1995) and expertise (DeBono & Harnish, 1988;Rhine & Severance, 1970). Our study improved on an earlier study by Bettinghaus et al (1970) that considered the idea of source credibility effects on syllogistic reasoning. While their study did not show any direct effects of source credibility, there were some flaws in the design that were addressed in our study.…”

“…Second, our study was careful to avoid presenting the syllogisms with potentially biasing information related to prior knowledge. Whereas the Bettinghaus et al (1970) study used syllogisms with political information that could have been influenced by already held political beliefs or ideas, our study used general hobbies or interests that were not necessarily true or false based on beliefs or popular culture. Finally, our study presented the syllogisms in a straightforward manner without unnecessary text to ensure that people could easily identify the syllogistic premises.…”

“…Bettinghaus, Miller, and Steinfatt (1970), in an examination of the effects of dogmatism on reasoning (i.e., whether people scoring high or low on a measure of dogmatism performed different on a reasoning task), considered how a number of factors affect reasoning performance. While the primary interest was in the effects of dogmatism, the study also considered the source of information as well as a manipulation of the content (i.e., belief bias effects).…”

Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers' Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising

“…Where source credibility is high and is accompanied by higher involvement, comparative advertising for new brand has a more positive effect on purchase intentions than noncomparative advertising Persuasion effect of source credibility is greater among individuals who cannot comprehend the message Source credibility affects individuals who are distracted during the time they are exposed to a message more than those who are not Greenberg and Tannenbaum (1961) Husek (1965) Greenberg and Miller (1966) Mills and Harvey (1972) Sternthal, Dholakia, and Leavitt (1978 Individuals with external locus of control are influenced more by highly credible source than by one of low credibility; internals are equally persuaded by high and low communicators Individuals who are critical, active learners are less affected by source credibility than those who are not critical, active learners Highly authoritarian people are more persuaded by high than low credibility sources Increasing involvement reduced the influence of a highly credible source but not that of the low credibility communicator Source credibility has an impact on attitudes for high involvement issues for subjects who are relatively unmotivated to articulate and differentiate external stimuli; the effect was increased message scrutiny When higher involvement is activated and a source of higher credibility is included in the ad, comparative advertising for a new product has a more positive effect on purchase intentions than noncomparative advertising Individuals with initial positive attitudes toward advocated issue are more persuaded by a less credible source; individuals with initial negative attitudes toward advocated issue are more persuaded by a more credible source Individuals whose attitudes have been formed as a result of direct experience with issues are more resistant to counterattitudinal messages and are less likely to be affected by source characteristics than those who have only indirect experience with an issue Authors Rotter (1966) Ritchie and Phares (1969) McGinnis and Ward (1974) Heesacker et al (1983) Johnson and Steiner (1967) Bettinghaus et al (1970) Harvey and Hays (1972) Johnson and ScHeppi (1969) Rhine and Severance (1970) Heesacker, Petty, and Cacioppo (1983) Gotlieb and Sarel (1991) Dholakia and Sternthal (1977) Sternthal, Phillips, and Dholakia (1978) Harmon and Coney (1982) Wu and Shaffer (1987) petence, dynamism and objectivity to the list of source credibility dimensions. In speech communications, Littlejohn (1971) posited three characteristics of a credible public speaker: competence (defined as expertise and knowledge), character (defined as trustworthiness and goodwill) and ...…”

A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Effects of Source Credibility on Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions

“…In addition, the effectiveness of source credibility has been found to be moderated by some receiver characteristics including the locus of control, authoritarianism, involvement, and extremity of initial attitude (for a detailed discussion of these variables, see Haley,19%). For instance, highly authoritarian people tend to be more influenced by high-credibility sources (Bettinghaus, Miller, & Steinfatt, 1970;Harvey & Hays, 1972). Johnson and Scileppi (1969) suggested that individuals highly involved with the issue are relatively immune to the effect of source credibility.…”