First Year Talk June 2005

Involvement Effects on Persuasion: 

Involvement Effects on Persuasion Brandon Kopp First Year Talk – June 9th, 2005

Johnson & Eagly (1989):2 Types of Involvement: 

Johnson & Eagly (1989): 2 Types of Involvement Outcome Relevance Value Relevance 20 Studies Senior Comprehensive Exams Consumer Products 15 Studies Use of Contraceptives Draft Deferments for Vietnam

Johnson and Eagly (1989)Outcome Relevant Involvement: 

Johnson and Eagly (1989) Outcome Relevant Involvement Attitudes that are linked to one’s currently important goals or outcomes High outcome-relevant involvement is associated with increased message processing Facilitates persuasion with strong arguments Inhibits persuasion with weak arguments

Johnson and Eagly (1989)Value Relevant Involvement: 

Johnson and Eagly (1989) Value Relevant Involvement “…the psychological state that is created by the activation of attitudes that are linked to important values.“ High value-relevant involvement is associated with inhibition of persuasion However, “the tendency for involvement to inhibit persuasion was weakened by strong arguments”

Petty and Cacioppo (1990):Involvement by Any Name…: 

Petty and Cacioppo (1990): Involvement by Any Name… Low High Self-relevance increases processing in an objective manner. Outcome Relevance Value Relevance Group Relevance Self-relevance increases processing but various factors confounded with the value-relevance studies leads to negatively bias processing. Already Considered Attitude Higher Attitude Consistent Knowledge

Petty and Cacioppo (1990): Criticisms of Johnson and Eagly (1989): 

Petty and Cacioppo (1990): Criticisms of Johnson and Eagly (1989) Often researchers did not manipulate value relevance, they selected people who were or were not “highly involved” in certain issues.

Petty & Cacioppo (1990): 

Petty & Cacioppo (1990) Possible Confounds with Value-Relevance Studies People have already considered their position on these issues Involvement is associated with more extreme attitudes Involvement is associated with increased attitude consistent knowledge An increase in attitude consistent knowledge may increase a person’s certainty in their attitude The more involving an issue the more likely it is that a person has publicly committed to their position

Petty & Cacioppo (1990): 

Petty & Cacioppo (1990) Possible Confounds with Value-Relevance Studies People have already considered their position on these issues Involvement is associated with more extreme attitudes Involvement is associated with increased attitude consistent knowledge An increase in attitude consistent knowledge may increase a person’s certainty in their attitude The more involving an issue the more likely it is that a person has publicly committed to their position

Purpose of This Study: 

Purpose of This Study Address Petty and Cacioppo’s (1990) criticisms of Johnson and Eagly’s (1989) meta-analysis. Use a novel topic Manipulate value/outcome-relevance Compare the two models of involvement effects on persuasion.

Slide10: 

Outcome-Relevant Importance/Involvement Important Goals/Outcomes Increased Message Acceptance with Strong, but Increased Rejection with Weak Arguments Johnson & Eagly Petty & Cacioppo Both Models Adapted from Petty, Cacioppo, and Haugtvedt (1992)

Method - Design: 

Method - Design 3 (Type of Involvement: Value or Outcome or No) X 2 (Argument Strength: Strong or Weak)

Cover Story: 

Cover Story Evaluating the effectiveness of news filtering software Personality Questionnaires  Personality Profile  Filters Out Stories That Are of Little Interest to Readers

“Personality Questionnaire” & Feedback: 

“Personality Questionnaire” & Feedback Need for Cognition Scale Need to Evaluate Scale Self-Monitoring Scale Value/Outcome Ranking Questionnaire

Slide15: 

Please Wait …………………………………………………………………………. Thank you for completing this portion of the personality questionnaire. Please wait while the computer calculates your score.

Slide16: 

The score you received on this scale was used to make determinations about your personality. We would now like you to review your score and the computer generated statement describing your personality.

Adaptability Scale: 

Adaptability Scale Your Score: 39 What does your score say about you?: While you have some information processing weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. Rigid Flexible Continue

Manipulation: 

Manipulation Using the personality profile you have created the computer has randomly selected an article from our database. Based on your earlier responses the news story selected will be highly relevant to your values/desired outcomes. That is, the computer predicts that the story will connect with the values/desired outcomes that are most important to you. Using the personality profile you have created the computer has randomly selected an article from our database. Based on your earlier responses the news story selected will not be applicable to you in any way. This is because you are serving in a “control group” for this study, so the story will not connect to your personal information.

Attitude Object: 

Attitude Object University Service Programs Additional general education requirement 9 hours of service benefiting the university per week for one quarter/semester. Work study jobs

Manipulation Check: 

Manipulation Check Value Relevance (3) Outcome Relevance (3) Personal Relevance (2) Issue Importance (2)

Argument Presentation: 

Argument Presentation Brief article Including five strong or weak arguments Strong Arguments The monetary savings for the university can be directed toward lowering tuition costs. Many employers look for people with skills in teamwork and communication; skills which are learned while participating in a university service program. Weak Arguments The monetary savings for the university can be directed toward faculty and staff pay raises. With students performing university services, there will be a great deal more money with which to plant exotic plants on campus.

Dependent Measures: 

Dependent Measures Attitude Measures (3) Dichotomous Value vs. Outcome Scale Relates more to values or outcomes Value Relevance (3) Outcome Relevance (3) Personal Relevance (2) Issue Importance (2) Thought Listing/Rating

Manipulation Checks: 

Value Relevance F(2,59)=2.30, p = 0.094 Outcome Relevance Personal Relevance Issue Importance F(2,59)=2.30, p > 0.10 Manipulation Checks F(2,59)=1.061, p > 0.10 F(2,59)=0.15, p > 0.10

Manipulation Checks – Value Relevance: 

Manipulation Checks – Value Relevance F(2,59)=2.30, p = 0.094

Manipulation Checks – Outcome Relevance: 

Manipulation Checks – Outcome Relevance F(2,59)=2.30, p > 0.10

Manipulation Checks – Personal Relevance: 

Manipulation Checks – Personal Relevance F(2,59)=1.061, p > 0.10

Manipulation Check – Issue Importance: 

Manipulation Check – Issue Importance F(2,59)=0.15, p > 0.10

Results – 3 (Relevance) X 2 (Argument Quality). Main effect for AQ.: 

Results – 3 (Relevance) X 2 (Argument Quality). Main effect for AQ. F(1,56) = 9.02, p < 0.005

Explanation – Free Recall Question: 

Explanation – Free Recall Question Why did the computer select for you the story that it did? 23% 77%

Explanation – Recognition Question: 

Explanation – Recognition Question What reason did the computer give for selecting the news article that it did? That is, what did the computer tell you the news article would relate to?

Explanation – Recognition Question (cont.): 

Explanation – Recognition Question (cont.) 50% 50% F(2,29) = 5.92, p < 0.01

Discussion: 

Discussion Strong arguments were more persuasive than weak arguments Relevance manipulation did not work It appears participants aren’t paying attention 50% of participants couldn’t recognize the manipulation 10 minutes after they received it

Future Directions: 

Future Directions Add consistent/inconsistent conditions to show positively/negatively biased processing Try different attitude objects Senior Comprehensive Exams? Consumer products?

Special Thanks: 

Special Thanks Rich Petty Jamie Barden Ken DeMarree Mike McCaslin Derek Rucker Michelle See Joe Roberts Tiffany Hardy

Slide35: 

Thank You Questions? Comments?

Reading Rainbow: 

Reading Rainbow For more information on involvement and persuasion processes consult your local library Johnson, B.T. & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-374. Johnson, B.T. & Eagly, A.H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375-384.