Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:11:31.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Psychological Processes Underlying Persuasion

A Social Psychological Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Richard E. Petty  and
Pablo Briñol
Richard E. Petty
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Pablo Briñol
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this article, the authors review a contemporary social psychological perspective on persuasion with an emphasis on explicating the psychological processes that underlie successful attitude change. Those mechanisms by which variables in the persuasion setting can influence attitude change are: (a) affect the amount of information processing; (b) bias the thoughts that are generated or (c) one's confidence in those thoughts (or other structural features); (d) serve as persuasive arguments or evidence or (e) affect attitudes by serving as simple cues and heuristics. By grouping the persuasion processes into meaningful categories, the authors aim to provide a useful guide to organize and facilitate access to key findings in this literature. They also describe a theoretical framework to understand the circumstances for which the different processes are more likely to influence our judgments, such as when variables precede or follow thought-generation, and when the extent of thinking is relatively low, medium, or high.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 52 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2008

References

Alba, J.W. and Marmorstein, H. (1987) ‘The Effects of Frequency Knowledge on Consumer Decision Making’, Journal of Consumer Research, 13: 411–54.Google Scholar
Blaney, P.H. (1986) ‘Affects and Memory: A Review’, Psychological Bulletin, 99: 229–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bower, G.H. (1981) ‘Mood and Memory ’, American Psychologist, 36: 129–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briñol, P. and Petty, R.E. (2003) ‘Overt Head Movements and Persuasion: A Self-validation Analysis ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 1123–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briñol, P. and Petty, R.E. (2004) ‘Self-validation Processes: The Role of Thought Confidence in Persuasion’ in Haddock, G. and Maio, G. (eds), Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes, pp. 205–26. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. and Petty, R.E. (2005) ‘Individual Differences in Persuasion’, in Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P. (eds), The Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change, pp. 575–616. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Briñol, P. and Petty, R.E. (2006) ‘Fundamental Processes Leading to Attitude Change: Implications for Cancer Prevention Communications ’, Journal of Communication, 56: 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briñol, P. and Petty, R.E. (in press) ‘Embodiment Attitude Change: A Multiple Processes Analysis ’, in Semin, G. and Smith, E. (eds), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R.E. and Barden, J. (2007) ‘Happiness versus Sadness as Determinants of Thought Confidence in Persuasion: A Self-validation Analysis ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 711–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briñol, P., Petty, R.E. and Tormala, Z.L. (2004) ‘The Self-validation of Cognitive Responses to Advertisements’, Journal of Consumer Research, 30: 559–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briñol, P., Petty, R.E. and Wheeler, S.C. (2006) ‘Discrepancies between Explicit and Implicit Self-concepts: Consequences for Information Processing’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 154–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1982) ‘The Need for Cognition ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42: 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J.T., Marshall-Goodell, B.S., Tassinary, L.G. and Petty, R.E. (1992) ‘Rudimentary Determinants of Attitudes: Classical Conditioning is More Effective when Prior Knowledge about the Attitude Stimulus is Low rather than High’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28: 207–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cesario, J., Grant, H. and Higgins, E.T. (2004) ‘Regulatory Fit and Persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling Right ”’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 388–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 752–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1987) ‘The Heuristic Model of Persuasion’, in Zanna, M. P., Olson, J. and Herman, C. P. (eds), Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5, pp. 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. and 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: 460–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (1999) Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Clark, M.S. and Isen, A.M. (1982) ‘Feeling States and Social Behavior’, in Hastorf, A. and Isen, A.M. (eds), Cognitive Social Psychology, pp. 73–108. New York: Elsevier/North-Holland.Google Scholar
DeBono, K.G. (1987) ‘Investigating the Social-adjustive and Value-expressive Functions of Attitudes: Implications for Persuasion Processes’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeBono, K.G. and Harnish, R.J. (1988) ‘Source Expertise, Source Attractiveness, and Processing or Persuasive Information: A Functional Approach ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 541–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSteno, D., Petty, R.E., Wegener, D.T. and Rucker, D.D. (2000) ‘Beyond Valence in the Perception of Likelihood: The Role of Emotion Specificity’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 397–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Forgas, J.P. (2001) The Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J., Fetherstonhaugh, D., Casey, S. and Gallagher, D. (1996) ‘Argument Integration and Attitude Change: Suppression Effects in the Integration of One-sided Arguments that Vary in Persuasiveness’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1995) ‘Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People's and Researchers' Beliefs about the Psychology of Persuasion ’, Journal of Consumer Research, 27: 123–56.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A.G. (1968) ‘Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change’, in Greenwald, A., Brock, T., and Ostrom, T. (eds), Psychological Foundations of Attitudes. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, R. and Park, B. (1986) ‘The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Judgment Task is Memory-based or On-line’, Psychological Review, 93: 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heesacker, M., Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1983) ‘Field Dependence and Attitude Change: Source Credibility can Alter Persuasion by Affecting Message-relevant Thinking ’, Journal of Personality, 51: 653–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E.T. (2000) ‘Making a Good Decision: Value from Fit’, American Psychologist, 55: 1217–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kruglanski, A.W. and Thompson, E.P. (1999) ‘Persuasion by a Single Route: A View from the Unimodel ’, Psychological Inquiry, 10: 83–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, H. and Snyder, M. (1996) ‘Cognitive Processing and the Functional Matching Effect in Persuasion. The Mediating Role of Subjective Perceptions of Message Quality’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32: 580–604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, A.Y. and Aaker, J.L. (2004) ‘Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86: 205–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackie, D.M. and Worth, L.T. (1989) ‘Processing Deficits and the Mediation of Positive Affect in Persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57: 27–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maio, G.R. and Olson, J. (2000) Why We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Martin, L.L. (2000) ‘Moods Do Not Convey Information: Moods in Context Do’, in Forgas, J. P. (ed.), Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, pp. 153–77. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
McClelland, D.C. (1985) ‘How Motives, Skills, and Values Determine What People Do’, American Psychologist, 40: 812–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, W.J. (1985) ‘Attitudes and Attitude Change’, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, pp. 233–346, 3rd edn. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Moore, D.L., Hausknecht, D. and Thamodaran, K. (1986) ‘Time Pressure, Response Opportunity, and Persuasion’, Journal of Consumer Research, 13: 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Briñol, P. (2002) ‘Attitude Change: The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion’, in Bartels, G. and Nielissen, W. (eds), Marketing for Sustainability: Towards Transactional Policy Making, pp. 176–90. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Briñol, P. (2006) ‘Understanding Social Judgment: Multiple Systems and Processes’, Psychological Inquiry, 17: 217–23.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E., Briñol, P. and Tormala, Z.L. (2002) ‘Thought Confidence as a Determinant of Persuasion: The Self-validation Hypothesis ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 722–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petty, R.E., Briñol, P., Tormala, Z.L. and Wegener, D.T. (2007) ‘The Role of Meta-cognition in Social Psychology ’, in Higgins, E. T. and Kruglanski, A. W. (eds), Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles, 2nd edn, pp. 254–84, New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1979a) ‘Issue-involvement Can Increase or Decrease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-relevant Cognitive Responses’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37: 1915–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1979b) ‘Effects of Forewarning of Persuasive Intent on Cognitive Responses and Persuasion’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5: 173–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1981) Attitudes and Persuasion: Classics and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1984a) ‘Source Factors and the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion’, Advances in Consumer Research, 11: 668–72.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1984b) ‘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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Goldman, R. (1981) ‘Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-based Persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41: 847–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E., Haugtvedt, C. and 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. and Krosnick, J. A. (eds), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, pp. 93–130. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E., Ostrom, T.M. and Brock, T.C. (1981) Cognitive Responses in Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E., Priester, J.R. and Briñol, P. (2002) ‘Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion’, in Byant, J. and Zillmann, D. (eds), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 2nd edn, pp. 155–99. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E., Schumann, D.W., Richman, S.A. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1993) ‘Flexible Correction Processes in Social Judgment: Correcting for Context-induced Contrast’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29: 137–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1998a) ‘Attitude Change: Multiple Roles for Persuasion Variables’, in Gilbert, D., Fiske, S. and Lindzey, G. (eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th edn, Vol. 1, pp. 323–90. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1998b) ‘Matching versus Mismatching Attitude Functions: Implications for Scrutiny of Persuasive Messages ’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 227–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E. and Wegener, D.T. (1999) ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies’, in Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (eds), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, pp. 41–72. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R.E., Wells, G.L. and Brock, T.C. (1976) ‘Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption versus Effort Justification’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5): 874–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R.E., Wheeler, S.C. and Bizer, G. (2000) ‘Attitude Functions and Persuasion: An Elaboration Likelihood Approach to Matched versus Mismatched Messages’, in Maio, G. and Olson, J. (eds), Why We evaluate: Functions of Attitudes, pp. 133–62. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Priester, J.M. and Petty, R.E. (1995) ‘Source Attributions and Persuasion: Perceived Honesty as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny ’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 637–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puckett, J., Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Fisher, D. (1983) ‘The Relative Impact of Age and Attractiveness Stereotypes on Persuasion’, Journal of Gerontology, 38: 340–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, N., Bless, H. and Bohner, G. (1991) ‘Mood and Persuasion: Affective Status Influence on the Processing of Persuasive Communications’, in Zanna, M. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 161–97. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, N. and Clore, G. (1983) ‘Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Well-being: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 513–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. (1974) ‘Self-monitoring of Expressive Behavior ’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30: 526–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. and DeBono, K.G. (1985) ‘Appeals to Image and Claims about Quality: Understanding the Psychology of Advertising’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49: 586–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M. and DeBono, K.G. (1989) ‘Understanding the Functions of Attitudes: Lessons from Personality and Social Behavior’, in Pratkanis, A., Breckler, S. and Greenwald, A. (eds), Attitude Structure and Function., pp. 339–59. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Staats, A.W. and Staats, C. (1958) ‘Attitudes Established by Classical Conditioning’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 159–67.Google Scholar
Stiff, J.B. (1986) ‘Cognitive Processing of Persuasive Message Cues: A Meta-analytic Review of the Effects of Supporting Information on Attitudes ' Communication Monographs, 53: 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiedens, L.Z. and Linton, S. (2001) ‘Judgment Under Emotional Certainty and Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions on Information Processing’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81: 973–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tormala, Z.L., Briñol, P. and Petty, R.E. (2006a) ‘When Credibility Attacks: The Reverse Impact of Source Credibility on Persuasion’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 684–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tormala, Z.L., Briñol, P. and Petty, R.E. (2007) ‘Multiple Roles for Source Credibility Under High Elaboration: It's All in the Timing’, Social Cognition, 25: 536–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tormala, Z.L., Petty, R.E. and Briñol, P. (2002) ‘Ease of Retrieval Effects in Persuasion: The Roles of Elaboration and Thought-confidence ’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 1700–12.Google Scholar
Wegener, D.T. and Petty, R.E. (1997) ‘The Flexible Correction Model: The Role of Naive Theories of Bias in Bias Correction’ in Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 141–208. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E. and Klein, D.J. (1994) ‘Effects of Mood on High Elaboration Attitude Change: The Mediating Role of Likelihood Judgments’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 24: 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E. and Smith, S.M. (1995) ‘Positive Mood Can Increase or Decrease Message Scrutiny: The Hedonic Contingency View of Mood and Message Processsing’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheeler, S.C., Petty, R.E. and Bizer, G.Y. (2005) ‘Self-schema Matching and Attitude Change: Situational and Dispositional Determinants of Message Elaboration’, Journal of Consumer Research, 31: 787–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, T.D. and Brekke, N. (1994) ‘Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations’, Psychological Bulletin, 116: 117–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, T.D., Lindsey, S. and Schooler, T.Y. (2000) ‘A Model of Dual Attitudes’, Psychological Review, 107: 101–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanna, M.P. and Rempel, J.K. (1988) ‘Attitudes: A New Look at an Old Voncept’, in Bar-Tal, D. and Kruglanski, A. W. (eds), The Social Psychology of Knowledge, pp. 315–34. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Zillmann, D. (1983) ‘Transfer of Excitation in Emotional Behavior’, in Cacioppo, J. T. and Petty, R. E. (eds), Social Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook, pp. 215–40. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar