Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T10:50:59.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Attitude Change and Persuasion

Past, Present, and Future Directions

from Part I - Individual Consumer Decision Making and Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2015

By
Zakary L. Tormala  and
Pablo Briñol
Edited by
Michael I. Norton ,
Derek D. Rucker  and
Cait Lamberton
Michael I. Norton
Affiliation:
Harvard Business School, Harvard University
Derek D. Rucker
Affiliation:
Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
Cait Lamberton
Affiliation:
Katz Graduate School of Business, University of Pittsburgh
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology , pp. 29 - 64
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 25–42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Akhtar, O., Paunesku, D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2013). Weak > strong: The ironic effect of argument strength on supportive advocacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1214–1226.Google Scholar
Barden, J., & Petty, R. E. (2008). The mere perception of elaboration creates attitude certainty: Exploring the thoughtfulness heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 489–509.Google Scholar
Barden, J., & Tormala, Z. L. (2014). Elaboration and attitude strength: The new meta-cognitive perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassili, J. N. (1996) Meta-Judgmental versus operative indices of psychological properties: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 637–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J. (2014). Word-of-mouth and interpersonal communication: An organizing framework and directions for future research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 586–607.Google Scholar
Bizer, G. Y., Larsen, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Exploring the valence-framing effect: Negative framing enhances attitude strength. Political Psychology, 32, 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizer, G. Y., & Petty, R. E. (2005). How we conceptualize our attitudes matters: The effects of valence framing on the resistance of political attitudes. Political Psychology, 26, 553–568.Google Scholar
Blankenship, K. L., Nesbit, S. M., & Murray, R. A. (2013). Driving anger and metacognition: The role of thought confidence on anger and aggressive driving intentions. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohner, G., Ruder, M., & Erb, H.-P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 495–519.Google Scholar
Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Berent, M. K., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1995). The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 159–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Becerra, A., Díaz, D., Horcajo, J., Valle, C., & Gallardo, I. (2005). The impact of need for cognition on interpersonal influence. Psicothema, 17, 666–671.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. & DeMarree, K. G., eds. (2012) Social Metacognition. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briñol, P., McCaslin, M. J., & Petty, R. E. (2012). Self-generated persuasion: Effects of the target and direction of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 925–940.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E (2003) Overt head movements and persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1123–1139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E (2005). Individual differences in persuasion. In Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., & Zanna, M. P. (eds.), The Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change (pp. 575–616). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E (2008). Embodied persuasion: Fundamental processes by which bodily responses can impact attitudes. In Semin, G. R. & Smith, E. R. (eds.), Embodiment Grounding: Social, Cognitive, Affective, and Neuroscientific Approaches (pp. 184–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E (2009a). Source factors in persuasion: A self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 49–96.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E (2009b). Persuasion: Insights from the self-validation hypothesis. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, (pp. 69–118). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. & Petty, R. E (2012). The history of attitudes and persuasion research. In Kruglanski, A. & Stroebe, W. (eds.), Handbook of the History Of Social Psychology (pp. 285–320). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Barden, J. (2007). Happiness versus sadness as determinants of thought confidence in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 711–727.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E, & DeMarree, K. (2015). Being threatened and being a threat can increase reliance on thoughts: A self-validation approach. In Carroll, P. J., Arkin, R. M., & Wichman, A. (eds.), Handbook on Personal Security (pp. 37–54). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & McCaslin, M. (2009). Changing attitudes on implicit versus explicit measures: What is the difference? In Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H., & Briñol, P. (eds.). Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures (pp. 285–326). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Tormala, Z. L. (2004). The self-validation of cognitive responses to advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 559–573.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E. & Wagner, B. C. (2009) Body postures effects on self-evaluation: A self-validation approach. European Journal of Social Psychology 39, 1053–64.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E. & Wagner, B. C. (2012). Embodied validation: Our body can change and also validate our thoughts. In Briñol, P. & DeMarree, K. G. (eds.), Social Metacognition (pp. 219–240). New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Wheeler, S. C. (2006). Discrepancies between explicit and implicit self-concepts: Consequences for information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 154–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briñol, P., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2015). Naïve theories about persuasion: Implication for information processing and consumer attitude change. International Journal of Advertising, 34, 85–106.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Rucker, D., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Individual differences in resistance to persuasion: The role of beliefs and meta-beliefs. In Knowles, E. S. & Linn, J. A. (eds.), Resistance and Persuasion (pp. 83–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2013). Ease and persuasion: Multiple processes, meanings, and effects. In Unkelbach, C. & Greifeneder, R. (eds.), The Experience of Thinking: How the Fluency of Mental Processes Influences Cognition and Behavior (pp. 101–118). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). The effects of message repetition and position on cognitive responses, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97–109.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1989). Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 3–12.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5–17.Google Scholar
Calder, B. J., Insko, C., & Yandell, B. (1974). The relation of cognitive and memorial processes to persuasion in a simulated jury trial. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 62–93.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message quest in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 246–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. L., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman, J. S. y Bargh, J. A. (eds.), Unintended Thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473.Google Scholar
Clark, J. K., & Wegener, D. T. (2013). Message position, information processing, and persuasion: The Discrepancy Motives Model. In Devine, P. & Plant, A. (eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 47, pp. 189–232). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, J. K., Wegener, D. T., Sawicki, V., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2013). Evaluating the message or the messenger? Implications for self-validation in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1571–1584.Google Scholar
Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Duhachek, A. L. (2010). Seeking optimality in the consumer waiting experience: The good and bad of waiting time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Consumer Psychology, St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Leone, C. (2011). A self-validation perspective on the mere thought effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 449–454.Google Scholar
Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2008). A new look at the consequences of attitude certainty: The amplification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 810–825.Google Scholar
Clarkson, J. J., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Dugan, R. G. (2013). The malleable influence of social consensus on attitude certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1019–1022.Google Scholar
Clarkson, J. J., Valente, M. J., Leone, C., & Tormala, Z. L. (2013). Motivated reflection on attitude-inconsistent information: An exploration of the role of fear of invalidity in self-persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1559–1570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clore, G. L., & Parrott, W. G. (1994). Cognitive feelings and metacognitive judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology (Special Issue), 24, 101–115.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. B., & Reed, A. (2006). A multiple pathway anchoring and adjustment (MPAA) model of attitude generation and reinforcement. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer, W. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561–574.Google Scholar
Cunningham, W. A., Packer, D. J., Kesek, A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2009). Implicit measurement of attitudes: A physiological approach. In Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H., & Briñol, P. (eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures (pp. 485–512). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, A. R., Yantis, S., Norwood, M., & Montano, D. E. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude–behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1184–1198.Google Scholar
DeMarree, K. G., Wheeler, C. S., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2014). Wanting other attitudes: Actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 5–18.Google Scholar
Dholakia, U. M., & Morwitz, V. G. (2002). The scope and persistence of mere measurement effects: Evidence from a field study of customer satisfaction measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 159–167.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The power matching effect: Psychological attunement between communicator and audience power enhances persuasion. Unpublished manuscript. INSEAD.Google Scholar
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2011). From rumors to facts, and facts to rumors: The role of certainty decay in consumer communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 1020–1032.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, T. E., Kopietz, R., & Groll, S. (2008). How communication goals determine when audience tuning biases memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 3–21.Google Scholar
Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 202–216.Google Scholar
Ein-Gar, D., Shiv, B., & Tormala, Z. L. (2012). When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 846–859.Google Scholar
Etgar, M., & Goodwin, S. A. (1982). One-Sided versus two-sided comparative message appeals for new brand introduction. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 460–465.Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363–381.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behaviour: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 23, pp. 75–109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 247–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 421–435.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., & Thibaut, J. (1951). Interpersonal communications in small groups, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 92–100.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In Terry, D. J. & Hogg, M. A. (eds.), Attitudes, Behavior, and Social Context: The Role of Norms and Group Membership (pp. 171–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
French, J. R. P. Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In Cartwright, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1995). Persuasion knowledge: Lay people's and researches’ beliefs about the psychology of persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 123–156.Google Scholar
Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2010). When in doubt, shout! Paradoxical influences of doubt on proselytizing. Psychological Science, 20, 1–7.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., & Payne, B. K. (2010) (eds.). Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Gorn, G., & Goldberg, M. (1980). Children's responses to repetitive TV commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 421–425.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., & Albert, R. D. (1968). Acceptance and recall of improvised arguments. Journal or Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 31–34.Google Scholar
Gross, S. R., Holtz, R., & Miller, N. (1995). Attitude certainty. In Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 215–245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grush, J. E. (1976). Attitude formation and mere exposure phenomena: A non-artificial explanation of empirical findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausmann, L. R. M., Levine, J. M., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Communication and group perception: Extending the “saying is believing” effect. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 539–554.Google Scholar
Heesacker, M. H., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message-relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653–666.Google Scholar
Horcajo, J., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2014). Multiple roles for majority versus minority source status on persuasion when source status follows the message. Social Influence, 9, 37–51.Google Scholar
Horcajo, J., Petty, R. E., &, Briñol, P. (2010). The effects of majority versus minority source status on persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 498–512.Google Scholar
Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on Mass Communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Huntsinger, J. R. (2013). Incidental experiences of affective coherence and incoherence influence persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 792–802.Google Scholar
Infante, D. A. (1976). Persuasion as a function of the receiver's prior success or failure as a message source. Communication Quarterly, 24, 21–26.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role-playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211–218.Google Scholar
Josephs, R. A., Giesler, R. B., & Silvera, D. H. (1994). Judgment by quantity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 21–32.Google Scholar
Karmarkar, U.R., & Tormala, Z.L. (2010). Believe me, I have no idea what I'm talking about: The effects of source certainty on consumer involvement and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 46, 1033–1049.Google Scholar
Kaufman, D. Q., Stasson, M. F., & Hart, J. W. (1999). Are the tabloids always wrong or it that just what we think? Need for cognition and perceptions of articles in print media. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1984–1997.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60.Google Scholar
Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 327–335.Google Scholar
Killeya, L. A. & Johnson, B. T. (1998). Experimental induction of biased systematic processing: The directed-thought technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations in getting one's way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452.Google Scholar
Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2004). Goal seeker and persuasion sentry: How consumer targets respond to interpersonal marketing persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 573–582.Google Scholar
Koriat, A. (2012). The self-consistency model of subjective confidence. Psychological Review, 119, 80–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Raviv, A., Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., Sharvit, K., Ellis, S., Bar, R., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2005). Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 37, pp. 346–392). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kupor, D., Tormala, Z. L., Norton, M. I., & Rucker, D. D. (2014). Thought calibration: How thinking just the right amount increases one's influence and appeal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labroo, A. A., Dhar, R., & Schwarz, N. (2008). Of frog wines and frowning watches: Semantic priming, perceptual fluency, and brand evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 819–831.Google Scholar
Lammers, J., Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). Power gets the job: Priming power improves interview outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 776–779.Google Scholar
Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 151–165.Google Scholar
Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.Google Scholar
Lydon, J., Zanna, M. P., & Ross, M. (1988). Bolstering attitudes by autobiographical recall: Attitude persistence and selective memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 78–86.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. G. Jr. (2006). Accessibility-diagnosticity and the multiple pathway anchoring and adjustment model. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 25–27.Google Scholar
Maio, G. R., & Thomas, G. (2007). The epistemic–teleologic model of deliberate self-persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 46−67.Google Scholar
Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1993). Mood as input: People have to interpret the motivational implications of their moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 317–326.Google Scholar
Mayer, N. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2010). “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 443–454.Google Scholar
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In Berkowitz, L (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 19, pp. 191–229). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Miller, R. C. (1976). Mere exposure, psychological reactance, and attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 229–233.Google Scholar
Mills, J., & Jellison, J. M. (1967). Effect on opinion change of how desirable the communication is to the audience the communicator addressed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 98–101.Google Scholar
Morrison, K. R. (2011). A license to speak up: Outgroup minorities and opinion expression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 756–766.Google Scholar
Morrison, K. R., & Wheeler, S. C. (2010). Nonconformity defines the self: The role of minority opinion status in self-concept clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 297–308.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In Lindsey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 347–412). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
O'Neal, E. C., Kipnis, D., & Craig, K. M. (1994). Effects on the persuader of employing a peripheral route technique. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 225–238.Google Scholar
Pechmann, C. (1992). Predicting when two-sided ads will be more effective than one-sided ads: The role of correlational and correspondent inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 441–453.Google Scholar
Pelham, B. W., Sumarta, T. T., & Myaskovsky, L. (1994). The easy path from many to much: The numerosity heuristic. Cognitive Psychology, 26, 103–133.Google Scholar
Perkins, A. W., & Forehand, M. R. (2010). Implicit social cognition and indirect measures in consumer behavior. In Gawronski, B. & Payne, B. K. (eds.), Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications (pp. 535–547). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petrocelli, J. V., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 30–41.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E. (1997). The evolution of theory and research in social psychology: From single to multiple effect and process models. In McGarty, C. & Haslam, S. A. (eds.), The Message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on Mind in Society (pp. 268–290). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to meta-cognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 137–147.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The Elaboration Likelihood Model. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A., & Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (vol. 1, pp. 224–245). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2015). Emotion and persuasion: Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & DeMarree, K. G. (2007). The Meta-Cognitive Model (MCM) of attitudes: Implications for attitude measurement, change, and strength. Social Cognition, 25, 609–642.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Loersch, C., & McCaslin, M. J. (2009). The Need for cognition. In Leary, M. R. & Hoyle, R. H. (eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp. 318–329). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P. & Tormala, Z. L. (2002) Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722–741.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z. L., & Wegener, D. T. (2007). The role of meta-cognition in social judgment. In Higgins, E. T. & Kruglanski, A. W. (eds.) Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles (2nd ed., pp. 254–284). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Fazio, R. H., & Briñol, P., (2009). The new implicit measures: An overview. In Petty, R. E., Fazio, R. H., & Briñol, P. (eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the New Implicit Measures (pp. 3–18). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. (pp. 93–130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (1995) (eds.). Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high and low elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5–20.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2006). Implicit ambivalence from attitude change: An exploration of the PAST model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 21–41.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2004). Resisting persuasion by counterarguing: An attitude strength perspective. In Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. A. (eds.), Perspectivism in Social Psychology: The Yin and Yang of Scientific Progress (pp. 37–51). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In Gilbert, D., Fiske, S., & Lindzey, G. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., vol. 1, pp. 323–390). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C. (1976). Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 874–884.Google Scholar
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.Google Scholar
Prislin, R., Boyle, S., Davenport, C., Farley, A., Jacobds, E.,,ichalak, J., Uehara, K., Zandian, F., & Xu, Y. (2011). On being influenced while trying to persuade: The feedback of persuasion outcomes to the persuader. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 51–58.Google Scholar
Rhine, R., & Severance, L. (1970). Ego-involvement, discrepancy, source credibility, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 175–190.Google Scholar
Rhodes, N., & Wood, W. (1992). Self-esteem and intelligence affect influenciability: The mediating role of message reception. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 156–171.Google Scholar
Rind, B., & Kipnis, D. (2002). Changes in self-perceptions as a result of successfully persuading others. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 141–156.Google Scholar
Rios, K., DeMarree, K. G., & Statzer, J. (2014). Attitude certainty and conflict style: Divergent effects of correctness and clarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 819–830..Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I.(1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In Hovland, C. I., & Rosenberg, M. J. (eds.), Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency among Attitude Components. New Haven, CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Rucker, D. D., & Galisnky, A. D. (this volume). Power and consumer behavior. In Norton, M. I., Rucker, D. D., & Lamberton, C. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2004). When resistance is futile: Consequences of failed counterarguing for attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 219–235.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. D., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2008). What's in a frame anyway? A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 137–149.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. D., & Tormala, Z. L. (2012). Meta-cognitive theory in consumer research. In Briñol, P. & DeMarree, K. (eds.), Social Metacognition (pp. 303–321). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2014). Consumer conviction and commitment: An appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 119–36.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Kardes, F. R., & Herr, P. M. (1992). The role of prior knowledge and missing information in multiattribute evaluation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(1), 76–91.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. (2004). Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332–348.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Mood and persuasion: Affective status influence the processing of persuasive communications. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 24, pp. 161–197). San Diego, CA: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.Google Scholar
See, Y. H. M., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (2013). Affective-cognitive meta-bases versus structural bases of attitudes predict processing interest versus efficiency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1111–1123.Google Scholar
See, Y. H. M., Petty, R. E., & Fabrigar, L. R. (2008). Affective and cognitive meta-bases of attitudes: Unique effects on information interest and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 938–955.Google Scholar
Sela, A., & Berger, J. (2012). How attribute quantity influences option choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 942–953.Google Scholar
Shavitt, S., Lowrey, T., Han, S., (1992). Attitude functions in advertising: The interactive role of products and self-monitoring. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 337–364.Google Scholar
Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shestowsky, D., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1998). Need for cognition and interpersonal influence: Individual differences in impact on dyadic decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1317–1328.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & Macgregor, D. G. (2002). The Affect Heuristic. In Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 397–420). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. T., De Houwer, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by manipulations of source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 193–205.Google Scholar
Smith, S. M., Fabrigar, L. R., MacDougall, B. L., & Wiesenthal, N. L. (2008). The role of amount cognitive elaboration, and structural consistency of attitude-relevant knowledge in the formation of attitude certainty. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 280–295.Google Scholar
Snyder, M., & Rothbart, M. (1971). Communicator attractiveness and opinion change. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 3, 377–387.Google Scholar
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 159–167.Google Scholar
Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In Berkowitz, I. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 11, pp. 289–338). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L. (2008). A new framework for resistance to persuasion: The resistance appraisals hypothesis. In Crano, W. D. & Prislin, R. (eds.), Attitudes and Attitude Change (pp. 213–234). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2006). When credibility attacks: The reverse impact of source credibility on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 684–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high elaboration: It's all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25, 4, 536–552.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L, Clarkson, J. J., & Henderson, M. D. (2011). Does fast or slow evaluation foster greater certainty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 422–434.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Clarkson, J. J., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Resisting persuasion by the skin of one's teeth: The hidden success of resisted persuasive messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 (3), 423–435.
Tormala, Z. L., DeSensi, V. L., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Resisting persuasion by illegitimate means: A meta-cognitive perspective on minority influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 354–367.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z.L., Falces, C., Briñol, P., & Petty, R.E. (2007). Ease of retrieval effects in social judgment: The role of unrequested cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 143–157.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2002). What doesn't kill me makes me stronger: The effects of resisting persuasion on attitude certainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1298–1313.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004a). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 427–442.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004b). Resistance to persuasion and attitude certainty: The moderating role of elaboration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1446–1457.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2002). Ease of retrieval effects in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1700–1712.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & DeSensi, V. L. (2010). Multiple roles for minority sources in persuasion and resistance. In Martin, R. & Hewstone, M. (eds.), Minority Influence and Innovation: Antecedents, Processes, and Consequences (pp. 105–131). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Attitude certainty: A review of past findings and emerging perspectives. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 469–492.Google Scholar
Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the social context: The impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 779–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wan, E. W., Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., & Clarkson, J. J. (2010). The effect of regulatory depletion on attitude certainty. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 531–541.Google Scholar
Wänke, M., Bohner, G., & Jurkowitsch, A. (1997). There are many reasons to drive a BMW: Does imagined ease of argument generation influence attitudes? Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 170–177.Google Scholar
Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 219–230.Google Scholar
Wood, W., Lundgren, S., Quellette, J. A., Busceme, S., & Blackstone, T. (1994). Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 323–345.Google Scholar
Xu, A. J., & Wyer, R. S. (2012). The role of bolstering and counterarguing mindsets in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 920–932.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.Google Scholar
Zanna, M. P, & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In Bar-Tal, D. & Kruglanski, A. W. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Attitudes (pp. 315–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×