The Experts below are selected from a list of 21699 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Durairaj Maheswaran - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
exploring message framing outcomes when systematic Heuristic or both types of Processing occur
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2004Co-Authors: Joan Meyerslevy, Durairaj MaheswaranAbstract:Mixed findings have emerged in message framing studies, even when such studies employ the same general type of framing, such as goal framing. This article attempts to show that by extending the Heuristic–systematic model-based explanation of message framing effects to incorporate conditions that may prompt both systematic and Heuristic Processing, this theory may accommodate some of the aberrant findings. The research reported shows that by varying a message issue's risky implications and its personal relevance, 2 factors that potentially influence the type of Processing people employ, systematic, Heuristic, or concurrently both types of Processing were evoked and influenced people's judgments, causing alternative patterns of message framing effects to occur. The results offer insight into how each of these types of Processing can affect message framing outcomes, and they imply that certain seemingly aberrant findings in the literature can be reconciled with this extended theory.
-
Heuristic Processing can bias systematic Processing effects of source credibility argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994Co-Authors: Shelly Chaiken, Durairaj MaheswaranAbstract:High- and low-task-importance Ss read a strong or weak unambiguous message or an ambiguous message that was attributed to a high- or low-credibility source. Under low task importance, Heuristic Processing of the credibility cue was the sole determinant of Ss' attitudes, regardless of argument ambiguity or strength. When task importance was high and message content was unambiguous, systematic Processing alone determined attitudes when this content contradicted the validity of the credibility Heuristic; when message content did not contradict this Heuristic, systematic and Heuristic Processing determined attitudes independently. Finally, when task importance was high and message content was ambiguous, Heuristic and systematic Processing again both influenced attitudes. Yet, source credibility affected persuasion partly through its impact on the valence of systematic Processing, confirming that Heuristic Processing can bias systematic Processing when evidence is ambiguous. Implications for persuasion and other social judgment phenomena are discussed.
Shelly Chaiken - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a Heuristic systematic Processing analysis of the effectiveness of product warning labels
Psychology & Marketing, 1998Co-Authors: Adam Zuckerman, Shelly ChaikenAbstract:In this article we present the Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980, 1987; Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) as a theoretical framework for research on product warning labels. The model proposes two fundamental information Processing modes. When Processing systematically, perceivers access, scrutinize, and integrate all useful information to reach their judgment. In contrast, Heuristic Processing involves the use of learned knowledge structures in the form of simple decision rules, or cognitive Heuristics, to reach judgments. In addition to proposing when either or both of these Processing modes will occur, and with what effect, the model also specifies three different underlying types of Processing motivations, termed accuracy, defense, and impression, each with implications for information Processing and judgments. This model is used to explain past findings on the effectiveness of product warning labels, and to suggest new areas for future research as well as practical guidelines for the design of warning labels. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
-
a Heuristic systematic Processing analysis of the effectiveness of product warning labels
Psychology & Marketing, 1998Co-Authors: Adam Zuckerman, Shelly ChaikenAbstract:In this article we present the Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980, 1987; Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) as a theoretical framework for research on product warning labels. The model proposes two fundamental information Processing modes. When Processing systematically, perceivers access, scrutinize, and integrate all useful information to reach their judgment. In contrast, Heuristic Processing involves the use of learned knowledge structures in the form of simple decision rules, or cognitive Heuristics, to reach judgments. In addition to proposing when either or both of these Processing modes will occur, and with what effect, the model also specifies three different underlying types of Processing motivations, termed accuracy, defense, and impression, each with implications for information Processing and judgments. This model is used to explain past findings on the effectiveness of product warning labels, and to suggest new areas for future research as well as practical guidelines for the design of warning labels. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
-
Heuristic Processing can bias systematic Processing effects of source credibility argument ambiguity and task importance on attitude judgment
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994Co-Authors: Shelly Chaiken, Durairaj MaheswaranAbstract:High- and low-task-importance Ss read a strong or weak unambiguous message or an ambiguous message that was attributed to a high- or low-credibility source. Under low task importance, Heuristic Processing of the credibility cue was the sole determinant of Ss' attitudes, regardless of argument ambiguity or strength. When task importance was high and message content was unambiguous, systematic Processing alone determined attitudes when this content contradicted the validity of the credibility Heuristic; when message content did not contradict this Heuristic, systematic and Heuristic Processing determined attitudes independently. Finally, when task importance was high and message content was ambiguous, Heuristic and systematic Processing again both influenced attitudes. Yet, source credibility affected persuasion partly through its impact on the valence of systematic Processing, confirming that Heuristic Processing can bias systematic Processing when evidence is ambiguous. Implications for persuasion and other social judgment phenomena are discussed.
-
the role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of Heuristic and systematic Processing
European Journal of Social Psychology, 1994Co-Authors: Shelly Chaiken, Gerd Bohner, Piroska HunyadiAbstract:The mechanisms by which mood states influence attitude judgments in persuasion settings are delineated in terms of current dual-process theorizing. With an emphasis on mechanisms that may operate when the evaluative implications of message content are ambiguous. In a preliminary test of hypotheses concerning such circumstances, college-aged subjects were put into a happy or sad mood and then read a message containing unambiguous strong, unambiguous weak, or ambiguous arguments, which was attributed to a highly credible source (Heuristic cue) When message content was ambiguous, sad (as compared to happy) subjects' attitudes were more influenced by Heuristic Processing, and their message-related thoughts were biased by the Heuristic cue. These and other results are discussed within a dual-Processing framework, and compared to other social cognition theorizing on the impact of affect on social judgment.
Brant R. Burleson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Explaining Bias in Teacher Ratings of Behavior Alteration Techniques: An Experimental Test of the Heuristic Processing Account.
Communication Education, 1997Co-Authors: Michael S. Waltman, Brant R. BurlesonAbstract:The purpose of this study was to assess the Heuristic Processing account of likelihood‐of‐use ratings for message strategies, an account offered to explain the problematically high correlation between the rated likelihood of use of message items and the rated social appropriateness of those items. The Heuristic Processing explanation was tested by manipulating the conditions which evoke Heuristic information Processing. Respondents in a control group provided likelihood‐of‐use ratings to Kearney et al. ‘s checklist of Behavior Alteration Techniques under standard instructions while those in the experimental group rated messages under conditions intended to decrease Heuristic information Processing. The decreased Heuristic Processing treatment altered the pattern of respondents' likelihood‐of‐use ratings such that (a) the association between likelihood‐of‐use ratings and the perceived politeness of checklist items was significantly (p < .05) smaller in the experimental condition than the control condition,...
-
The reality of item desirability and Heuristic Processing in bat ratings: Respecting the data
Communication Education, 1997Co-Authors: Michael S. Waltman, Brant R. BurlesonAbstract:This brief rebuttal refutes Kearney and Plax's criticisms of the research by Waltman and Burleson. Careful analysis of the existing data shows that teachers do rely on “negative” or power assertive discipline in the classroom. Further, the Heuristic Processing account provides a sound explanation of the biased pattern observed in BAT ratings.
L. J. Shrum - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect
Human Communication Research, 2006Co-Authors: L. J. ShrumAbstract:This study tested the hypothesis that Processing strategy moderates the effect of television viewing on social perceptions (cultivation effect). One hundred twenty-two male and female students provided estimates of the prevalence of crime, occupations, affluence, and marital discord under one of three conditions. Some participants were induced to process Heuristically (Heuristic group) through instructions to provide their estimates spontaneously with little elaboration. Other participants were induced to process systematically (systematic group) through an accuracy motivation/task importance manipulation. A third (control) group received instructions to simply answer the questions. The results indicated that Processing strategy moderated the cultivation effect such that cultivation effects were noted in the Heuristic and control groups but not in the systematic group. These results are consistent with the notion that the cultivation effect can be explained in part as the result of Heuristic Processing through lack of source discounting, and they provide support for the Heuristic Processing model of cultivation effects.
-
the role of television in the construction of consumer reality
Journal of Consumer Research, 1997Co-Authors: Thomas C Oguinn, L. J. ShrumAbstract:This article presents the results of a two-study inquiry into a particular type of consumer socialization: the construction of consumer social reality via exposure to television. In study 1, estimates of the prevalence of products and activities associated with an affluent lifestyle were positively related to the total amount of television respondents watched. The amount of television viewing was shown to function as a mediating variable between the demographic variables income and education and the affluence estimates. In study 2, which consisted of student participants who were either very heavy or very light soap opera viewers, heavy viewers again provided higher estimates of the prevalence of the same types of products and behaviors measured in study 1. In addition, heavy soap opera viewers constructed their estimates significantly faster than light viewers, which suggests that relevant information is more accessible in memory for heavy viewers than light viewers. The results are consistent with Heuristic Processing strategies, particularly the availability Heuristic, in which individuals infer prevalence from the ease of retrieval of relevant examples (Tversky and Kahneman 1973).
Kim A. Dawson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Relation of Conditional Reasoning to Heuristic Processing
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1993Co-Authors: Ben R. Slugoski, Heather A. Shields, Kim A. DawsonAbstract:Wyer and Srull have proposed that a tendency to treat conditional relationships between events as if they were biconditional underlies a number of familiar biases in human social judgment. This hypothesis was tested in a factor-analytic study in which 111 subjects completed seven measures of Heuristic use and three measures of conditional reasoning. A principal components analysis of the measures revealed two main factors, corresponding to an availability dimension and a representativeness dimension. There was no evidence for the hypothesis that the disposition to infer "Y is X" given "X is Y" underlies either dimension, although one measure of conditional reasoning, Wason's selection task, was related to both. This result is discussed in terms of Evans's two-stage (Heuristic/analytic Processing) model of reasoning.