The effects of presenting "one side" versus "both sides" in changing opinions on a controversial subject.

Hovland, Carl I.; Lumsdaine, Arthur A.; Sheffield, Fred D.

doi:10.1037/14519-008

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All three effective defenses were refutational including RSI, RDI, and RSD. This finding is consistent with the findings of Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (1949) and McGinnies (1966) who established the superiority of twosided messages to one-sided appeals for "initially opposed" (low-range beliefs) receivers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The Effects of Initial Belief Level on Inoculation Theory and Its Proposed Mechanisms

Pryor

Steinfatt

1978

Human Comm Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

McCuire's inoculation theory employs an analogy to predict the effectiveness of defenses in inducing resistance to persuasion. In discussing this analogy, McGuire states that it is necessary to use beliefs which have not been attacked previously. Many studies have used inoculation theory to predict resistance with beliefs which have been attacked.We argue that McGuire is incorrect in his interpretation of the analogy and discuss an experimental test of different defenses' effectiveness over three belief levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The Effects of Initial Belief Level on Inoculation Theory and Its Proposed Mechanisms

Pryor

Steinfatt

1978

Human Comm Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The application of message-sidedness research (14-17) to printed health messages is novel; this study was designed to assess and test those predictions. In this study, regardless of the message format received, all participants increased their knowledge score from pretest to posttest, as expected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Persuasion researchers have studied whether presenting only the position advocated (or, one side of the argument) is more or less persuasive to an audience than is acknowledging the existing counterarguments (i.e., recognizing multiple sides of an argument). (14-17)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, messages that present only supporting arguments in favor of a specific position (e.g., facts only) have been labeled “one-sided messages,” whereas messages that present supporting arguments in favor of the specific position and also address opposing viewpoints (e.g., facts and myths) have been labeled “two-sided messages.”(14-17) Message sidedness research suggests that there are two distinct types of two-sided messages. (14) A two-sided non-refutational message acknowledges the existence of opposing arguments, but makes no direct attempt to refute the arguments (i.e., facts and myths), whereas a two-sided refutational message not only acknowledges opposing arguments, but also refutes the opposing arguments by attacking their plausibility or offering additional undermining evidence (i.e., facts, myths, and refutations).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient knowledge and recall of health information following exposure to “facts and myths” message format variations

Cameron

Roloff

Friesema

et al. 2013

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To assess if exposure to varying “facts and myths” message formats affected participant knowledge and recall accuracy of information related to influenza vaccination. Methods Consenting patients (N=125) were randomized to receive one of four influenza related messages (Facts Only; Facts and Myths; Facts, Myths, and Refutations; or CDC Control), mailed one week prior to a scheduled physician visit. Knowledge was measured using 15 true/false items at pretest and posttest; recall accuracy was assessed using eight items at posttest. Results All participants’ knowledge scores increased significantly (p <0.05); those exposed to the CDC Control message had a higher posttest knowledge score (adjusted mean=11.18) than those in the Facts Only condition (adjusted mean 9.61, p=<0.02). Participants accurately recalled a mean of 4.49 statements (sd=1.98). ANOVA demonstrated significant differences in recall accuracy by condition [F(3, 83)=7.74, p<.001, η2 = 0.22]. Conclusion Messages that include facts, myths, and evidence to counteract myths appear to be effective in increasing participants’ knowledge. We found no evidence that presenting both facts and myths is counterproductive to recall accuracy. Practice Implications Use of messages containing facts and myths may engage the reader and lead to knowledge gain. Recall accuracy is not assured by merely presenting factual information.

show abstract

“…Past explanations for sidedness effects asserted that the effects were moderated by the message recipient's initial attitude toward the source's position, topic familiarity, and intelligence (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949). Specifically, one-sided messages were posited to be more effective than two-sided messages when the recipient initially agreed with the source's position, was unfamiliar with the topic, or unintelligent.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Testing a model of message sidedness: Three replications

Allen

Hale

Mongeau

et al. 1990

Communication Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This experiment tested the results of a meta-analysis of message sidedness (Jackson & Allen, 1987). The results are consistent with the prior meta-analysis. Two-sided refutational messages were more persuasive than one-sided messages, which were in turn more persuasive than two-sided nonrefutational messages. Testing the generalizability of this finding using 17 messages found consistent effects across the messages. F OR more than 40 years, research has investigated the impact of message features in persuasion. In the last 10 years that research has changed radically. The methodology of meta-analysis, i.e., accumulating results across studies, has been improved and is widely accepted in the social sciences. The results of meta-analyses on persuasive message features demonstrate consistencies in bodies of literature previously thought to be inconsistent. One recent example serves as the focal point for this research. A recent meta-analysis of message sidedness research in persuasion discounted popular explanations for sidedness effects and advanced a previously unconsidered explanation (Jackson & Allen, 1987).The basic issue in the message sidedness literature is whether it is more persuasive to present only arguments favoring the position advocated by the source (a one-sided message) or both opposing and supporting arguments (a two-sided message). Past explanations for sidedness effects asserted that the effects were moderated by the message recipient's initial attitude toward the source's position, topic familiarity, and intelligence (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949). Specifically, one-sided messages were posited to be more effective than two-sided messages when the recipient initially agreed with the source's position, was unfamiliar with the topic, or unintelligent. When the recipient disagreed with the source, was familiar with the topic, or intelligent, a two-sided message was posited to be more effective. While these popular explanations were frequently advanced, the considerable experimental data were inconsistent with them.In an effort to discern consistencies in the literature, Jackson and Allen (1987) meta-analyzed 38 message sidedness studies. From the meta-analytic data they reached two important conclusions. First, the data were at odds with previously hypothesized effects for one's initial attitude, familiarity with the topic, and intelligence. Second, they found sidedness effects were moderated by the type of two-sided message utilized in any given study.In scrutinizing the sidedness literature, Jackson and Allen (presence of three types of messages in which the source advocates his or her position on some issue: (a) a refutational two-sided message in which the possibility of another position on the issue is raised and refuted, (b) a nonrefutational two-sided message where the existence of another position on the issue is acknowledged and noted to be undesirable, but where no attempt is made to demonstrate why it is undesirable, and (c) one-sided messages where only the source's position on ...

show abstract

The effects of presenting "one side" versus "both sides" in changing opinions on a controversial subject.

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

The Effects of Initial Belief Level on Inoculation Theory and Its Proposed Mechanisms

The Effects of Initial Belief Level on Inoculation Theory and Its Proposed Mechanisms

Patient knowledge and recall of health information following exposure to “facts and myths” message format variations

Testing a model of message sidedness: Three replications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About