Abstract
Self-generated thought has been shown to have a significant impact on attitude change. Merely thinking about an attitude can result in more extreme attitudes. Although research in this area has investigated several moderating factors, most of the research looks at constraints that attenuate but do not reverse the effect (depolarization). The current research investigates source effects as a depolarizing variable while testing two additional moderating variables. The results provide important new insights into self-generated persuasion. Source effects can result in polarizing effects if the source is credible but depolarizing effects if the source is less credible (experiment 1). Further, thought-induced attitude change depends on varying levels of need for cognitive closure (experiment 2 and experiment 3) and information sufficiency (experiment 3).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, N. H. (1967). Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75, 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024995.
Anderson, N. H. (1981). Information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.
Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54, 875–884.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.003.
Clarkson, J. J., Valente, M. J., Leone, C., & Tormala, Z. L. (2013). Motivated reflection on attitude-inconsistent information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1559–1570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213497983.
Cronley, M. L., Posavac, S. S., Meyer, T., Kardes, F. R., & Kellaris, J. J. (2005). A selective hypothesis testing perspective on price-quality inference and inference-based choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1502_8.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1–31.
Gaeth, G., Levin, I., Sood, S., Juang, C., & Castellucci, J. (1997). Consumers’ attitude change across sequences of successful and unsuccessful product usage. Marketing Letters, 8, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007933226810.
Germann, F., Grewal, R., Ross, W. T., & Srivastava, R. K. (2014). Product recalls and the moderating role of brand commitment. Marketing Letters, 25, 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-013-9250-5.
Grice, H. P. (1975). In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Logic and conversation (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Appendix A. in: Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Houghton, D., & Kardes, F. (1998). Market share overestimation and the noncomplementarity effect. Marketing Letters, 9, 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008028407624.
Hung, I. W., & Wyer, R. S. (2008). The impact of implicit theories on responses to problem-solving print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18, 223–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.04.011.
Hwai Lee, Y., & Yuen Han, C. (2002). Partitioned pricing in advertising: effects on brand and retailer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 13, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015011108224.
Judd, C. M., & Lusk, C. M. (1984). Knowledge structures and evaluative judgments: effects of structural variables on judgmental extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1193.
Kang, Y.-S., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Beauty and the beholder: toward an integrative model of communication source effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1086/504143.
Kardes, F. R., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (1993). Direction of comparison, expected feature correlation, and the set-size effect in preference judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80074-5.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing.”. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.263.
Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity–extremity effect and age-based stereoty**. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.2.193.
Marsh, K. L., & Wallace, H. M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on beliefs: formation and change. In D. Albarracin, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 369–395). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Thought-induced attitude change: the effects of schema structure and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.259.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1.
Petty, R. E., & Brinol, P. (2010). Attitude change. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: the state of the science (pp. 217–259). Oxford: Oxord University Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.01.008.
Tesser, A. (1976). Attitude polarization as a function of thought and reality constraints. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(76)90071-4.
Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 289–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60010-6.
Tesser, A., & Leone, C. (1977). Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90004-X.
Tesser, A., Leone, C., & Clary, E. G. (1978). Affect control: process constraints versus catharsis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01185788.
Tesser, A., Martin, L., & Mendolia, M. (1995). The impact of thought on attitude extremity and attitude-behavior consistency. In Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (Ohio State University series on attitudes and persuasion) (Vol. 4, pp. 73–92). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Inc.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: a social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033683.
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: a metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 427–442. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_11.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049.
Yamagishi, T., & Hill, C. T. (1983). Initial impression versus missing information as explanations of the set-size effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 942–951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.5.942.
Yüce, P., & Highhouse, S. (1998). Effects of attribute set size and pay ambiguity on reactions to ‘help wanted’ advertisements. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199807)19:4<337::aid-job848>3.0.co;2-v.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pfeiffer, B.E., Deval, H., Silvera, D.H. et al. The effect of message credibility, need for cognitive closure, and information sufficiency on thought-induced attitude change. Mark Lett 30, 193–205 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-019-09491-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-019-09491-x