Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:01:12.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How research on persuasion can inform dual-process models of judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2023

Richard E. Petty
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA [email protected] https://richardepetty.com [email protected] https://psychology.osu.edu/people/wegener.1
Duane T. Wegener
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA [email protected] https://richardepetty.com [email protected] https://psychology.osu.edu/people/wegener.1
Pablo Briñol
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain [email protected] https://pablobrinol.com/

Abstract

De Neys makes some useful points regarding dual-process models, but his critique ignores highly relevant theories of judgment from the persuasion literature. These persuasion models predate and often circumvent many of the criticisms he makes of the dual-process approaches he covers. Furthermore, the persuasion models anticipated some of the correctives to dual-process models that he proposes.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

De Neys aims to provide a broad critique of prevailing dual-process and system (DP/S) models of judgment in “key fields,” as well as introduce a more viable approach (see Petty & Briñol, Reference Petty and Briñol2008, on dual-process vs. system frameworks). However, his critique fails to consider theories from the persuasion literature such as the heuristic-systematic (HSM; Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, Reference Chaiken, Liberman, Eagly, Uleman and Bargh1989) and elaboration likelihood (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, Reference Petty and Cacioppo1986) models that are clearly relevant and more highly cited than several of the covered DP/S approaches. Critically, the relevant persuasion models often agree with and predate the core points De Neys makes, and have already addressed some of the key challenges he poses. De Neys emphasizes how his new model is superior to prevailing DP/S models, but ironically his new model is better largely because it mimics features of the earlier persuasion models that were ignored. We illustrate our points largely using the ELM because we are intimately familiar with it, but also because there are numerous ELM studies that support our points (Petty & Briñol, Reference Petty, Briñol, Van Lange, Kruglanski and Higgins2012).

The first critique De Neys's offers of DP/S models is that they rely on exclusivity – the notion that fast (relatively low thought) and slow (relatively high thought) systems should yield different judgments. In contrast, the author proposes that high- and low-thought processes can: (1) “cue the same response” and (2) might not have “the same features.” These two ideas are fundamental to the ELM which explains how and why high- and low-thought processes can result in the same outcome under some circumstances but different outcomes under others. For example, is it better for persuasion to give people 3 or 9 message arguments? The ELM holds that it depends on whether the arguments are cogent or specious and whether people are engaged in relatively high or low amounts of thinking. When thinking is high, people evaluate the merits of the arguments, but when thinking is low, they are more likely to rely on simply counting the arguments using the heuristic – the more the better. Thus, when the arguments are strong, 9 arguments produce more persuasion than 3 regardless of the amount of thinking because processing for merit and counting produce the same outcome. However, when the arguments are weak, the high- and low-thought processes lead to different outcomes. Under low thinking, 9 weak arguments are still more persuasive than 3 because of the quantity heuristic. But, under high thinking, 9 weak arguments are less persuasive than 3 because they produce more negative thoughts (Petty & Cacioppo, Reference Petty and Cacioppo1984).

Regarding the second point, the ELM explains that even though the persuasion outcome is the same under high and low thinking when the arguments are strong (i.e., 9 > 3), the “features” of enhanced persuasion under 9 arguments can differ because the processes that led to that superiority are different. Specifically, the evaluations induced by 9 arguments over 3 under high thinking are more likely to persist over time, resist change, and guide behavior than the very same evaluations induced via a lower thought heuristic process (Haugtvedt & Petty, Reference Haugtvedt and Petty1992). Thus, although we agree with the author's insight, this notion has been evident in the ELM for a long time (for parallels in ELM-guided work on numerical anchoring, see Blankenship, Wegener, Petty, Detweiler-Bedell, & Macy, Reference Blankenship, Wegener, Petty, Detweiler-Bedell and Macy2008).

Another critique of DP/S models De Neys offers is that they do not explain how and when people might switch between low- and high-deliberation modes. De Neys also postulates that people always switch from low to high deliberation. In contrast, the ELM holds that people can start their processing at high elaboration. For instance, when a person initially views a particular judgment as important enough to think about carefully, there is no need to start with or generate a low-deliberation response first that then has to be corrected (Petty & Cacioppo, Reference Petty and Cacioppo1990). That is, low deliberation is not assumed to be the default mode. Rather, many variables determine whether an initial judgment results from high or low deliberation or whether people shift from one mode to another (Carpenter, Reference Carpenter2015).

To explain when people move from a low- to a high-deliberation mode, De Neys proposes that it stems from uncertainty about the correct output (i.e., when low- and high-deliberation modes produce different outcomes). When uncertainty reaches a particular threshold, people shift to high thinking and this deliberation ceases when uncertainty drops below that threshold. Although De Neys's certainty threshold notion is quite reasonable, we note that it parallels the earlier sufficiency principle from the HSM (Chaiken et al., Reference Chaiken, Liberman, Eagly, Uleman and Bargh1989). Furthermore, according to the persuasion models, in addition to uncertainty (e.g., stemming from ambivalence; Petty, Briñol, & Johnson, Reference Petty, Briñol, Johnson, Gawronski and Strack2012), many other variables have been shown to motivate and/or enable enhanced deliberation (e.g., personal relevance of the judgment, responsibility for the judgmental outcome, etc.; Petty & Wegener, Reference Petty, Wegener, Gilbert, Fiske and Lindzey1998).

Another critique is that DP/S models largely hold that the flawed (biased) outcomes occur when the output of low thinking is not corrected by high thinking. In contrast, De Neys proposes that deliberation “does not magically imply that the resulting response will be correct” (target article, sect. 3.3, para. 2). Yet again, persuasion models had already proposed that the amount of thinking and the extent of bias in that thinking are orthogonal (Petty & Cacioppo, Reference Petty and Cacioppo1990; for an example about stereotyping, see Wegener, Clark, & Petty, Reference Wegener, Clark and Petty2006). Thus, high thinking can sometimes lead to an even more flawed (biased) judgment than low thinking when, for example, a prime biases an initial (fast) judgment that then guides and contaminates the subsequent thinking (Petty, Reference Petty, Forgas and Williams2001).

In sum, although De Neys makes some reasonable points, a number of those points parallel principles previously proposed and documented in research examining relevant persuasion theories. By ignoring those frameworks, including their applications beyond the persuasion context (e.g., Petty & Briñol, Reference Petty, Briñol, Sherman, Gawronski and Trope2014) and especially in judgment and decision-making domains where the criticized DP/S approaches have dominated (e.g., see Wegener, Petty, Blankenship, & Detweiler-Bedell, Reference Wegener, Petty, Blankenship and Detweiler-Bedell2010), De Neys missed an opportunity to provide a more complete and integrative critique of DP/S models.

Competing interest

None.

References

Blankenship, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B., & Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 14651476. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, C. J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM's argument quality × processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 501534. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman, J. S. & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212252). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 308319. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E. (2001). Subtle influences on judgments and behaviors: Who is most susceptible? In Forgas, J. & Williams, K. D. (Eds.), Social influence: Direct and indirect processes (pp. 129146). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to meta-cognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(2), 137147. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00071.xCrossRefGoogle 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. 224245). Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781446249215.n12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2014). The elaboration likelihood and meta-cognitive models of attitudes: Implications for prejudice, the self, and beyond. In Sherman, J., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 172187). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Johnson, I. (2012). Implicit ambivalence. In Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (Eds.), Cognitive consistency: A fundamental principle in social cognition (pp. 178201). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 6981. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123205. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107(3), 367374. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.367CrossRefGoogle 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. 323390). McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wegener, D. T., Clark, J. K., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Not all stereotyping is created equal: Differential consequences of thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 4259. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Blankenship, K. L., & Detweiler-Bedell, B. (2010). Elaboration and numerical anchoring: Implications of attitude theories for consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 516. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2009.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar