Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Romero, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Insko, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Romero, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Insko, C. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Cognitive Mediation Hypothesis Revisited: An Empirical Response to Methodological and Theoretical Criticism

Anna A. Romero

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, romero{at}email.unc.edu

Christopher R. Agnew

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chester A. Insko

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The cognitive mediation hypothesis has become a well-established assumption in persuasion theory. However, several theoretical and methodological criticisms have been raised to call this assumption into question. Three experiments that address these criticisms were conducted to provide a more direct test of the cognitive mediation hypothesis. Using the forewarning effect as a testing arena, Experiment I demonstrated that interference with either motivation or ability to counterargue reduced fore-warning-induced resistance to persuasion. Experiment 2 demonstrated that exposure to counterarguments generated by others and self-generated counterarguments were functionally equivalent and redundant. Experiment 3 used a path-analytic approach to demonstrate that the persuasion differences produced by forewarning were eliminated by covarying the effect of cognitive responses generated between forewarning and message exposure. Taken together, the three experiments provide converging support for the cognitive mediation hypothesis, reconfirming the central role of cognition in the persuasion process.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 7, 651-665 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167296227001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
L. A. Killeya and B. T. Johnson
Experimental Induction of Biased Systematic Processing: The Directed-Thought Technique
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, January 1, 1998; 24(1): 17 - 33.
[Abstract]