This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Petty, R. E. Articles by Wegener, D. T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Petty, R. E. Articles by Wegener, D. T. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Matching Versus Mismatching Attitude Functions: Implications for Scrutiny of Persuasive Messages

Ohio State University, petty.1{at}osu.edu

Duane T. Wegener

Purdue University, wegener{at}psych.purdue.edu

Two studies were conducted to examine the hypothesis that matching the content of a persuasive message to the functional basis of people's attitudes enhances message scrutiny. In Study 1, high and low self-monitors were exposed to a message that matched or mismatched the functional basis of their attitudes (i.e., image appealfor high self-monitors and quality appealfor low self-monitors) and that -contained either strong or weak arguments. Attitudes were more strongly affected by message strength when the message arguments matched rather than mismatched thefunctional basis of the attitude. In Study 2, this outcome was especially characteristic of individuals who typically do not enjoy thinking (those low in need for cognition). These studies show that matching arguments to the functional basis of an attitude is not invariably beneficialfor persuasion but can enhance or reduce attitude change (compared to mismatched arguments) depending on the cogency of the matched information.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Haddock, G. R. Maio, K. Arnold, and T. Huskinson Should Persuasion Be Affective or Cognitive? The Moderating Effects of Need for Affect and Need for Cognition Pers Soc Psychol Bull, June 1, 2008; 34(6): 769 - 778. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. E. Petty and P. Brinol Psychological Processes Underlying Persuasion: A Social Psychological Approach Diogenes, February 1, 2008; 55(1): 52 - 67. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Pullig, R. G. Netemeyer, and A. Biswas Attitude Basis, Certainty, and Challenge Alignment: A Case of Negative Brand Publicity Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, October 1, 2006; 34(4): 528 - 542. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. Werch, J. L. Grenard, J. Burnett, J. A. Watkins, S. Ames, and E. Jobli Translation as a function of modality: the potential of brief interventions. Eval Health Prof, March 1, 2006; 29(1): 89 - 125. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. R. Hullett Using Functional Theory to Promote Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Testing: The Impact of Value-Expressive Messages and Guilt Communication Research, August 1, 2004; 31(4): 363 - 396. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. T. Bianco, E. T. Higgins, and A. Klem How "Fun/Importance" Fit Affects Performance: Relating Implicit Theories to Instructions Pers Soc Psychol Bull, September 1, 2003; 29(9): 1091 - 1103. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. M. Evans and R. E. Petty Self-Guide Framing and Persuasion: Responsibly Increasing Message Processing to Ideal Levels Pers Soc Psychol Bull, March 1, 2003; 29(3): 313 - 324. [Abstract] [PDF]