Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change.

Apsler, Robert; Sears, David O.

doi:10.1037/h0021248

Cited by 131 publications

(86 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the most reliable influences on message processing occurs as a result of the perceived relevance of the message to the audience. When members of the audience feel that a message may be relevant to events in their own lives, they are more apt to experience a sense of issue involvement (Apsler & Sears, 1968). Issue involvement, in tum, has been associated with more elaborate and active processing of messages.…”

Section: Involvement and Persuasion In Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Apsler and Sears (1968) and Petty and Cacioppo (e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1979a), we presented all subjects with the same basic message content, but highinvolvement subjects were led to believe that the event described in the message would affect them personally, whereas low-involvement subjects were led to believe that the depicted event would not affect them. This manipulation avoids the interpretive problems encountered when using different messages across conditions, such as potential differences in subjects' familiarity with various issues (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 83).…”

Section: Involvement and Persuasion In Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do we know what we've learned from listening to the news?

Schneider

Laurion

1993

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the relationship between knowledge acquisition and an awareness of that knowledge within the context of listening to the news. Subjects listened to a recording of a radio news program consisting of regular news items as well as editorials, manipulated to be of high or low personal relevance. They then completed a surprise memory test and rated their confidence in their answers. In contrast to many studies, the results indicated a strong positive confidence-accuracy relationship. Confidence ratings were generally a better predictor of an individual's performance than were predictions based on item difficulty. Whereas subjects reported strong and accurate feelings of knowing, they apparently lacked complementary feelings of not knowing. The implications of these findings and others are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Involvement and Persuasion In Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Involvement and Persuasion In Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we know what we've learned from listening to the news?

Schneider

Laurion

1993

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When setting out to gauge attitude "intensity," some researchers measured certainty (Brim, 1955;Guttman & Suchman, 1947;Katz, 1944;McDill, 1959;Suchman, 1950), whereas others measured extremity (McDill, 1959;Tannenbaum, 1956). To measure "involvement," some researchers assessed importance (Apsler & Sears, 1968;Borgida & Howard-Pitney, 1983;Gorn, 1975; Howard-Pitney, Borgida, & Omoto, 1986), others have assessed knowledge (Stember & Hyman, 1949-1950, and still others measured elaboration (Bishop, 1990;Petty & Cacioppo, 1979). And whereas attitude "salience" has sometimes been measured by indices of importance (Hoelter, 1985;Jackson & Marcus, 1975;Lemon, 1968;Powell, 1977;Tedin, 1980), it has also been gauged by measuring elaboration (Brown, 1974).…”

Section: Common-factor Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes

Visser¹,

Bizer²,

Krosnick³

2006

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

153

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[or she] will do…They draw lines about, and segregate, an otherwise chaotic environment; they are our methods for finding our way about in an ambiguous universe." Gordon W. Allport, 1935, p. 806 It has been nearly 70 years since Gordon Allport famously declared the attitude "the most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology" (Allport, 1935, p. 798). In the decades since this bold claim, a large literature has accumulated generally reinforcing the notion that attitudes often do, as Allport (1935) suggested, profoundly influence perception, cognition, and behavior. Equally clear from this literature, however, is that attitudes do not always do so. That is, although some attitudes exert a powerful impact on thinking and on behavior, others are largely inconsequential. Similarly, whereas some attitudes are tremendously durable, resisting change in the face of a persuasive appeal and remaining stable over long spans of time, others are highly malleable and fluctuate greatly over time.The term "attitude strength" is often used to capture this distinction, and researchers have identified roughly a dozen attributes of attitudes that are associated with their strength (see .These strength-related attitude attributes include attitude importance, knowledge, elaboration, certainty, ambivalence, accessibility, intensity, extremity, structural consistency, and others. A large literature now exists documenting the relations of these attitude attributes with the four defining features of strong attitudes (i.e., resistance to change, stability over time, and a powerful impact on thought and on behavior; . For example, attitudes to which people attach more personal importance are better predictors of behavior (e.g., Budd, 1986;Parker, Perry, & Gillespie, 1974;Rokeach & Kliejunas, 1972), more resistant to change (Fine, 1957;Gorn, 1975;Zuwerink & Devine, 1996), and more powerfully influence liking of other people (Byrne, London, & Griffitt, 1968;Clore & Baldridge, 1968;Granberg & Holmberg, 1986;Krosnick, 1988b;McGraw, Lodge, & Stroh, 1990), inferences about others' personality traits (Judd & Johnson, 1981), and many other cognitive processes. Similar sorts of relations have been documented between other strength-2 related attitude attributes and the four defining features of strong attitudes (for a review, see . But considerably less is known about the relations among the strength-related attitude attributes themselves. In fact, a controversy has emerged in the attitude literature in recent years regarding the underlying structure of these attributes.In this chapter, we review this controversy and the empirical evidence and conceptual assumptions that have fueled it. We then draw on a diverse set of recent studies to shed new light on the conceptual and practical utility of the competing perspectives. Finally, we consider the implications of our findings for the conceptualization of attitude strength and for the methods by which it is studied. We begin below by defining each strength-rela...

show abstract

“…In a second experiment, Petty and Caeioppo (1979b;see also Petty & Cacioppo, 1979a) had their high-involvement communicator advocate a different policy change (that undergraduate comprehensive examinations be instituted) for students at the subjects' own university versus a distant, relatively unknown university. Although this method of manipulating involvement was modeled on one used much earlier by Apsler and Sears (1968), the recent popularity of the manipulation appears to have stemmed from its repeated use by Petty, Cacioppo, and their colleagues , 1981bPetty, Cacioppo, & Heesacker, 1981). In these studies, involvement was manipulated by having a recommended change take effect at the subjects' own university versus a distant university and by having the recommended change take effect soon (next year) versus in the distant future (in 10 years).…”

Section: Outcome-relevant Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, other studies established, for half of their subjects, an atypical set for receiving the message or responding to the attitudinal measure. For example, Apsler and Sears (1968) warned half of their subjects of the position the communicator was going to take, and presented the attitude measure to half of their subjects in a bogus pipeline format (see Jones & Sigall, 1971). Conditions establishing such unusual sets were also deleted.…”

Section: Design Of Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.

Johnson

Eagly

1989

Psychological Bulletin

820

671

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defines involvement as a motivational state induced by an association between an activated attitude and the self-concept. Integration of the available research suggests that the effects of involvement on attitude change depended on the aspect of message recipients' self-concept that was activated to create involvement: (a) their enduring values (value-relevant involvement), (b) their ability to attain desirable outcomes (outcome-relevant involvement), or (c) the impression they make on others (impression-relevant involvement). Findings showed that (a) with value-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were less persuaded than low-involvement subjects; (b) with outcome-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were more persuaded than low-involvement subjects by strong arguments and (somewhat inconsistently) less persuaded by weak arguments; and (c) with impression-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were slightly less persuaded than lowinvolvement subjects.To understand the conditions under which people are persuaded by others, researchers have often invoked the concept of involvement. Although this construct was popular prior to M. Sherif and Cantril's (1947) work (see A. G. Greenwald's, 1982, review), their proposal that highly involving attitudes be regarded as components of the self-concept or ego was seminal to theory about involvement's impact on attitude change. According to M. Sherif and Cantril (1947), such attitudes "have the characteristic of belonging to me, as being part of me, as psychologically experienced" (p. 93).M. Sherif, C. W. Sherif, and their colleagues developed the implications of involvement (which they often called "ego involvement") for persuasion by giving it a major role in their social judgment-involvement approach, a theory of attitude change developed in the 1950s and early 1960s (Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957;C. W. Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965;M. Sherif & Hovland, 1961). During this same period, Zimbardo (1960) introduced the concept of response involvement in order to predict attitude change in a social influence setting. In more A preliminary report of this research was presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, May 1987.We thank

show abstract

Warning, personal involvement, and attitude change.

Cited by 131 publications

References 16 publications

Do we know what we've learned from listening to the news?

Do we know what we've learned from listening to the news?

Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength‐related Attitude Attributes

Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About