Selective self-categorization: meaningful categorization and the in-group persuasion effect

Research stemming from self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987) has demonstrated that individuals are typically more persuaded by messages from their in-group than by messages from the out-group. The present research investigated the role of issue relevance in moderating these effects. In particular, it was predicted that in-groups would only be more persuasive when the dimension on which group membership was defined was meaningful or relevant to the attitude issue. In two studies, participants were presented with persuasive arguments from either an in-group source or an out-group source, where the basis of the in-group/out-group distinction was either relevant or irrelevant to the attitude issue. Participants' attitudes toward the issue were then measured. The results supported the predictions: Participants were more persuaded by in-group sources than out-group sources when the basis for defining the group was relevant to the attitude issue. However, when the defining characteristic of the group was irrelevant to the attitude issue, participants were equally persuaded by in-group and out-group sources. These results support the hypothesis that the fit between group membership and domain is an important moderator of self-categorization effects.     

Mood effects on attitude judgments: independent effects of mood before and after message elaboration.

This study investigated the independent effects of induced mood on the encoding of persuasive messages and on the assessment of attitude judgments. In Experiment 1, positive or negative mood was induced either before the encoding of a counterattitudinal message or before the assessment of attitude judgments. When mood was induced before message presentation, Ss in a bad mood were more persuaded by strong than by weak arguments, whereas Ss in a good mood were equally persuaded by strong and by weak arguments. When Ss encoded the message in a neutral mood, however, the advantage of strong over weak arguments was more pronounced when Ss were in a good rather than in a bad mood at the time of attitude assessment. In Experiment 2, Ss exposed to a counterattitudinal message composed of either strong or weak arguments formed either a global evaluation or a detailed representation of the message. Positive, negative, or neutral mood was then induced. Ss in a good mood were most likely and Ss in a negative mood least likely to base their reported attitudes on global evaluations.     

Uncertainty orientation in the group context: categorization effects on persuasive message processing

Persuasive messages often originate from in-group or out-group sources. Theoretically, in-group categories could facilitate heuristic-based message processing (because of the attractiveness of in-groups and their social reality cues) or systematic-based processing (because of high personal relevance of the message). The authors expected individual differences in uncertainty orientation and socially based expectancy congruence to be important variables in understanding these processes. Participants were exposed to strong or weak, in-group or out-group messages that were either expectancy congruent (in-group agreement, out-group disagreement) or expectancy incongruent (in-group disagreement, out-group agreement). As predicted, uncertainty-oriented participants increased systematic information processing under incongruent conditions relative to congruent (i.e., relatively certain) conditions; certainty-oriented individuals processed systematically only under congruent conditions. These findings suggest that uncertainty that has been created through social-categorization conflicts is treated differently by people of different personality styles.     

Uncertainty Orientation in the Group Context: Categorization Effects on Persuasive Message Processing

Abstract

Persuasive messages often originate from in-group or out-group sources. Theoretically, in-group categories could facilitate heuristic-based message processing (because of the attractiveness of in-groups and their social reality cues) or systematic-based processing (because of high personal relevance of the message). The authors expected individual differences in uncertainty orientation and socially based expectancy congruence to be important variables in understanding these processes. Participants were exposed to strong or weak, in-group or out-group messages that were either expectancy congruent (in-group agreement, out-group disagreement) or expectancy incongruent (in-group disagreement, out-group agreement). As predicted, uncertainty-oriented participants increased systematic information processing under incongruent conditions relative to congruent (i.e., relatively certain) conditions; certainty-oriented individuals processed systematically only under congruent conditions. These findings suggest that uncertainty that has been created through social-categorization conflicts is treated differently by people of different personality styles.     

The effects of a salient self-schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: Top-down versus bottom-up message processing

The effects of a salient self-schema on message evaluation were studied. Subjects were identified who characterized themselves using trait adjectives that reflected the prototype of either a “religious” or a “legalistic” person. Equally persuasive sets of proattitudinal messages were developed empirically using weak arguments. Half of the messages were developed to reflect a “religious” perspective on the issue (capital punishment, abortion) whereas half were developed to reflect a “legalistic” perspective on the issue. Religious and legalistic subjects were then exposed to religious or legalistic arguments supporting an equally acceptable position (e.g., eliminating capital punishment). Afterward, subjects evaluated the persuasiveness of the communication and listed their thoughts as part of a “curriculum development project.” Results suggested that subjects when exposed to a schema-relevant message arguments for a position in which they believed were more positive about the quality of the message arguments and in their cognitive responding. These data extend the heuristic value of selfschemata to the area of attitudes and suggest that cognitive responses in persuasion are subjectively rather than objectively rational.     

Morningness–eveningness orientation and attitude change: Evidence for greater systematic processing and attitude change at optimal time-of-day

This study examines the relationship between morningness–eveningness orientation and time-of day on attitude change, and tests the hypothesis that people will be more persuaded when tested at their optimal time-of-day (i.e., morning for M-types and evening for E-types) than non-optimal time-of-day (i.e., evening for M-Types and morning for E-types). Two hundred and twenty participants read a message that contained either strong vs. weak quality counter-attitudinal arguments (anti-voluntary euthanasia) in the morning (9.00 a.m.) or in the evening (7.00 p.m.). When tested at their respective optimal time-of-day (for both M- and E-types) there was a reliable difference in attitude change between the strong vs. weak messages (indicating message processing had occurred) while there was no difference between strong vs. weak messages when tested at their non-optimal time-of-day. In addition, the amount of message-congruent thinking mediated the attitude change. The results show that M- and E-types pay greater attention to and elaborate on a persuasive message at their optimal time-of-day, and this leads to increased attitude change, compared to those tested at their non-optimal time-of-day.     

The Influence of Source Physical Attractiveness on Advertising Effectiveness: A Functional Perspective1

High and low self-monitors heard either a physically attractive or unattractive source promote a new product with either strong or weak arguments. High self-monitors were persuaded by the physically attractive source only when she presented strong arguments. In contrast, low self-monitoring individuals were persuaded by the physically attractive source regardless of argument strength. Neither high nor low self-monitors were persuaded by the physically unattractive source, regardless of the quality of the arguments she offered. Cognitive response and recall data suggest that high self-monitors may have been systematically processing the physically attractive source's message and low self-monitors may have been more heuristically processing her message. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for advertising strategies.     

Taking the watchdog off its leash: personal prejudices and situational motivations jointly predict derogation of a stigmatized source

Lower- and higher-prejudiced individuals may strategically derogate negatively stereotyped individuals. Regardless of degree of prejudice, participants with a directional goal to discredit a threatening message and its source were more likely to do so when the source belonged to a negatively stereotyped group. They also were less persuaded by that stigmatized source. When this directional goal was negated by making the message nonthreatening, lower-prejudiced individuals evaluated the stigmatized and nonstigmatized sources, and their messages, similarly and were equally persuaded by both sources. When an accuracy goal was simultaneously introduced, lower-prejudice participants again rated the stigmatized and nonstigmatized sources comparably yet continued to derogate the stigmatized speaker's message and were less persuaded by him. Removing the directional goal or adding the accuracy goal did not affect higher-prejudiced participants' evaluations. The importance of examining situational goals and individual differences when studying biased responding is discussed.     

Self-referencing, quality of argument, and persuasion

This research examines whether self-referencing and self-attention facilitate careful examination of a message, referred to as systematic processing. In Experiment 1, undergraduates (n=158) who were induced to be either high or low in self-referencing read either a strong or a weak two-sided article that discussed tuition increases. Contrary to predictions, low self-referencing participants agreed more with increasing tuition than high self-referencing participants. Participants who read strong versus weak arguments agreed more with increasing tuition. In Experiment 2 undergraduates (n=204) who were either high or low in self-attention and either high or low in self-referencing read either a strong or weak two-sided article that discussed tuition increases. Consistent with predictions, participants who were either high in self-attention or high in self-referencing were more persuaded by strong than weak arguments. Specifically, both high self-attention, low self-referencing participants and low self-attention, high self-referencing participants were significantly more persuaded by strong than weak arguments. There was a trend for high self-attention, high self-referencing participants to be more persuaded by strong than weak arguments. There were no argument quality effects for low self-attention low self-referencing participants. The results of these two studies suggest that both self-referencing and self-attention facilitate systematic processing.     

Majority versus minority influence: when,not whether,source status instigates heuristic or systematic processing

Two experiments investigated the extent of message processing of a persuasive communication proposed by either a numerical majority or minority. Both experiments crossed source status (majority versus minority) with message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to determine which source condition is associated with systematic processing. The first experiment showed a reliable difference between strong and weak messages, indicating systematic processing had occurred, for a minority irrespective of message direction (pro‐ versus counter‐attitudinal), but not for a majority. The second experiment showed that message outcome moderates when a majority or a minority leads to systematic processing. When the message argued for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the majority source; but when the message did not argue for a negative personal outcome, there was systematic processing only for the minority source. Thus one key moderator of whether a majority or minority source leads to message processing is whether the topic induces defensive processing motivated by self‐interest. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Value-Congruent Information Processing: The Role of Issue Involvement and Argument Strength

Two experimental studies were carried out to investigate the influence of value-congruent information on information processing. We hypothesized that recipients would engage in systematic processing in value-congruent conditions, whereas heuristic processing would be used in value-incongruent conditions. One hundred participants in each experiment received a message that was framed in either environmental/altruistic or economical/egoistic terms, containing either strong or weak arguments. Results showed that value-congruent messages resulted in discrimination between strong and weak arguments, whereas for value-incongruent messages argument strength had either weak or no effects. Implications and future research are discussed.     

Selective Self-Categorization: Meaningful Categorization and the In-Group Persuasion Effect

ABSTRACT

Research stemming from self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987 Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. and Wetherell, M. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory, Oxford, , England: Basil Blackwell. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) has demonstrated that individuals are typically more persuaded by messages from their in‐group than by messages from the out-group. The present research investigated the role of issue relevance in moderating these effects. In particular, it was predicted that in-groups would only be more persuasive when the dimension on which group membership was defined was meaningful or relevant to the attitude issue. In two studies, participants were presented with persuasive arguments from either an in-group source or an out-group source, where the basis of the in-group/out-group distinction was either relevant or irrelevant to the attitude issue. Participants' attitudes toward the issue were then measured. The results supported the predictions: Participants were more persuaded by in-group sources than out-group sources when the basis for defining the group was relevant to the attitude issue. However, when the defining characteristic of the group was irrelevant to the attitude issue, participants were equally persuaded by in-group and out-group sources. These results support the hypothesis that the fit between group membership and domain is an important moderator of self-categorization effects.     

Systematic and heuristic processing of majority and minority-endorsed messages: the effects of varying outcome relevance and levels of orientation on attitude and message processing

Two experiments investigated the conditions under which majority and minority sources instigate systematic processing of their messages. Both experiments crossed source status (majority vs. minority) with message quality (strong vs. weak arguments). In each experiment, message elaboration was manipulated by varying either motivational (outcome relevance, Experiment 1) or cognitive (orientating tasks, Experiment 2) factors. The results showed that when either motivational or cognitive factors encouraged low message elaboration, there was heuristic acceptance of the majority position without detailed message processing. When the level of message elaboration was intermediate, there was message processing only for the minority source. Finally, when message elaboration was high, there was message processing for both source conditions. These results show that majority and minority influence is sensitive to motivational and cognitive factors that constrain or enhance message elaboration and that both sources can lead to systematic processing under specific circumstances.     

Attitude accessibility and message processing: The moderating role of message position

Past research suggests that pre-message attitude accessibility can influence the amount of processing of persuasives messages (with highly accessible attitudes eliciting higher levels of processing than attitudes lower in accessibility). The current research suggests that the previous conclusions are only partly true—effects of accessibility on message processing are moderated by the extent to which the persuasive message is proattitudinal versus counterattitudinal. In two experiments, pre-message attitudes and attitude accessibility were measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2) prior to receiving a strong or weak persuasive message. When messages were counterattitudinal, increased pre-message accessibility was associated with greater message processing (as in past research). However, when messages were proattitudinal, increased pre-message accessibility was associated with decreased message scrutiny. Potential underlying mechanisms and implications are discussed.     

Exploring the effect of regulatory focus on ad attitudes: the moderating roles of message sidedness and argument quality

This research explores the interaction effects of message sidedness and argument quality of ads on how either promotion‐focused or prevention‐focused individuals engender their ad attitudes. Two hundred and forty undergraduates were randomly assigned to a 2 (regulatory focus: prevention‐focus/promotion‐focus) × 2 (message sidedness: one‐sided messages/two‐sided messages) × 2 (argument quality (AQ): weak/strong) between‐subjects design. Results indicate that promotion‐focused individuals tend to engender more favourable attitudes to weak AQ ads than strong AQ ads, whereas prevention‐focused individuals tend to engender more favourable attitudes to strong AQ ads than weak AQ ads. In addition, results indicate more favourable attitudes for one‐sided messages over two‐sided messages for promotion‐focused individuals, as well as more favourable attitudes for two‐sided messages over one‐sided messages for prevention‐focused individuals. Furthermore, one‐sided messages result in more favourable ad attitudes when linked with weak AQ for promotion‐focused individuals; in contrast, two‐sided messages elicit more favourable ad attitudes when linked with strong AQ for prevention‐focused individuals. Results suggest that message sidedness and argument quality are closely related to regulatory focus, which has a direct impact on ad attitudes. Practical implications, theoretical contributions, limitations and directions for future research are discussed.     

The Impact of Negative Campaign Ads

We compared negative and positive ads in the context of a fictitious election. Participants read a strong or weak message supporting one candidate (positive ad) or derogating the opposition candidate (negative ad). The strong positive message had a greater impact on attitudes toward the candidates than the weak positive message, but message strength had no significant effect for negative messages, suggesting that positive messages are centrally processed, and negative messages serve mainly as peripheral cues. Accordingly, a strong positive message was more effective than a weak positive message, but a weak positive message was less effective than a weak negative message. We conclude that negative political ads are advisable only when candidates cannot provide strong arguments to support their candidacy.     

Self-attribution of attitude as a function of belief feedback

Previous research has found that subjects listening to a communication can be persuaded more when they receive false physiological feedback concerning their emotional state than when such feedback is not presented. Such results, in conjunction with Bem's (1972) postulate that subjects infer their attitude from the external circumstances of their behavior, suggested that false feedback of belief or disbelief would affect persuasion. Subjects listened to a speech while observing their (false) reactions on a "belief meter." Half of the subjects received strong positive belief feedback, and the other half received strong disbelief feedback. Demand characteristics were varied by telling half of the subjects in each group that the meter was highly reliable and valid and the other half that is was of questionable validity. Results showed that the meter feedback affected self-attributions of attitude. Subjects receiving disbelief feedback rated their attitude the same as a control group who merely completed the attitude scale. Subjects receiving belief feedback were persuaded more than a control group receiving only the communication. The implications of the data for the construct of attitude were discussed.     

Gain or non‐loss: The message matching effect of regulatory focus on moral judgements of other‐orientation lies

Previous studies found that individuals with promotion focus are more likely to be persuaded by messages framed in terms of gain‐related words; individuals with prevention focus are more likely to be persuaded by messages framed in terms of loss‐related words. This is known as the message matching effect of regulatory focus. The present study extended this effect into the field of moral judgement of other‐orientation lies. Two experiments were conducted, revealing that (a) individuals with promotion focus judged gain‐framed other‐orientation lies to be more moral, while individuals with prevention focus judged non‐loss‐framed other‐orientation lies to be more moral; and (b) the subjective processing fluency had a partial mediating role in the message matching effect. Theoretical implications and future research directions were discussed.     

The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages

The present study contributes a cultural analysis to the literature on the persuasive effects of matching message frame to individuals’ motivational orientations. One experiment examines how members of cultural groups that are likely to differ in their regulatory focus respond to health messages focusing on either the benefits of flossing or the costs of not flossing. White British participants, who had a stronger promotion focus, were more persuaded by the gain-framed message, whereas East-Asian participants, who had a stronger prevention focus, were more persuaded by the loss-framed message. This cultural difference in persuasion was mediated by an interaction between individuals’ self-regulatory focus and type of health message. Thus health messages framed to be culturally congruent led participants to have more positive attitudes and stronger intentions to perform the health behaviors, and the interaction between self-regulatory focus and message frame emerged as the pathway through which the observed cultural difference occurs. Discussion focuses on the integration of individual difference, socio-cultural, and situational factors into models of health persuasion.     

双向偏见引发冲突情境下自我归类对民族社会化觉察的影响——来自景颇族、傣族和汉族初中生的证据

采用情境实验法和故事补全任务,考察双向偏见引发冲突情境下的自我归类对景颇族、傣族与汉族初中生的民族社会化觉察的影响。结果表明,作为冲突事件的当事者,景颇族学生和傣族学生觉察到的促进和睦、文化社会化及促使不信任等民族社会化信息存在差异;景颇族、傣族和汉族学生的自我归类存在差异;自我归类对促进和睦、文化社会化与报告权威等信息的觉察的影响亦存在民族差异。在双向偏见冲突情境下,三族学生的自我归类与民族社会化觉察有一定关系:无论是做当事者/内群体归类、旁观者/外群体归类,还是做调解者/群际归类,被试对促进和睦的觉察均最多。偏见准备主要与当事者归类有关,而进行调解者归类的被试更容易觉察到"报告权威"。