Involvement and Persuasion_Tradition Versus Integration

7/24/2019 Involvement and Persuasion_Tradition Versus Integration.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/involvement-and-persuasiontradition-versus-integration 1/8

Psychological Bulle t in Copyright 1990 by the Am erican Psychologica l Associa tion, Inc .

1990, Vol . 107, No. 3 , 367 -374 0033-2909/90/ 00.75

In volv em en t and Persuasion Tradit ion V ersus Integration

R i c h a r d E . P e t t y a n d J o h n T . C a c i o p p o

Oh io S ta te Unive rs i ty

I n a r e c e n t m e t a - a n al y s i s, J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y ( 1 9 8 9 ) q u e s t i o n e d o u r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f a n d e v i -

de nc e for the e ff e c ts of invol ve m e nt on pe r sua s ion (Pe t ty & Ca c ioppo, 1979, 1986) . In pa r t i c u la r ,

t h e y c o n c l u d e d t h a t ( a ) w h a t w e h a d t e r m e d

issu involv m nt

r e p r e s e n t e d t w o d i s t i n c t t y p e s o f

i n v o l v e m e n t ( o u t c o m e - v e r s u s v a l u e -r e l ev a n t ), ( b ) e a c h t y p e o f i n v o l v e m e n t h a d u n i q u e e f fe c ts o n

p e r s u a si o n , a n d ( c ) o u t c o m e i n v o l v e m e n t e ff e ct s m a y b e o b t a i n e d o n l y b y 1 g r o u p o f r e s e a r ch e r s .

W e a r g u e t h a t a l t h o u g h 2 d i s t i n c t r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n s o f i n v o l v e m e n t h av e e m e r g ed , o u r o r i g i n a l

p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e 2 c a t e g o ri e s o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n d u c e s i m i l a r p r o c es s e s i n p e r s u a s i o n s i t u a t i o n s r e-

m a i n s v i a b le . E v i d e n c e f r o m J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y 's m e t a - a n a ty s i s sh o w s t h a t a s b o t h t y p e s o f i n v o l v e -

m e n t i n c r ea s e , a r g u m e n t q u a l i t y b e c o m e s a m o r e i m p o r t a n t d e t e r m i n a n t o f a t t it u d e s . T h e g r e a t er

m e s s ag e r e j e ct i o n f o u n d w i t h i n v o l v e m e n t i n v a l u e a s c o m p a r e d w i t h o u t c o m e s t u d i e s c a n b e e x -

p l a i n e d i n t e r m s o f c o n f o u n d i n g f a c to r s . F i n al ly , w e n o t e t h a t t h e o u t c o m e i n v o l v e m e n t ef fe c ts t h a t

w e r e p o r t e d i n i t ia l l y h a v e b e e n r e p l i c a t e d b y o t h e r i n v e s t i g at o r s , i n c l u d i n g J o h n s o n a n d E a gl y.

In a recen t a r t i c le in th i s journa l , Johnso n and Eagly (1989)

repor ted a m e ta -ana lys i s o f the accum ula ted re sea rch on in -

vo lvem ent and pe rsuas ion in which they conc luded tha t i t was

use fu l to d i s t ingu i sh be tween va lue - and o u tcom e-re levan t in -

vo lvem e nt . l In add i t ion , they suggested tha t a l though e f fec ts fo r

the f ir st type o f invo lv em en t were robus t , e f fec ts fo r the l a t t e r

t y p e o f i n v o l v e m e n t m a y b e o b t a i n e d o n l y b y o n e g r o u p o f r e-

s ea rche rs . In th i s a r t i c le , we ques t ion b o th o f these conc lus ions

and prov ide a b r ie f c r i tique o f the i r m e ta -ana lys is .

U t i l i ty o f t h e V a l u e V e rs u s O u t c o m e

I n v o l v e m e n t D i s ti n c ti o n

In Jo hnson and Eagly ' s (1989) v iew, va lue - re levan t invo lve -

m e n t ( V R I ) o c c u r s w h e n t h e t o p ic o f a p e r s u as iv e c o m m u n i c a -

t ion is l inked to im p or ta n t va lues (p . 290) such a s f reedom or

equa l i ty (Rokeach , 1968), and ou tcom e -re levan t invo lvem ent

(OR I) occurs when the top ic o f the m essage is l inked to the re -

c ip ien t ' s cur re n t ly im p or tan t goa l s o r ou tco m e s (p . 292),

such as obtainin g a col lege degree. Joh nso n an d Eagly cri tic ized

those who have pos tu la ted tha t the two cons t ruc t s have s im i la r

effects in persu as ion con texts ( i .e . , Pet ty & Caciopp o, 1979),

a n d t h e y p r o v i d e tw o p r i m a r y a r g u m e n t s f o r t h e v a l i d it y a n d

ut i l ity o f the i r d i st inc t ion . F i r s t, they n o ted th a t the tw o k inds

o f in v o l v e m e n t s te m f r o m d i s t in c t t r a d i t io n s o f e x p e r i m e n t a -

t i o n ( p. 2 9 3) w i t h d i s t in c t b o d i e s o f r e s e ar c h t h a t r e f l e c t . . .

d i f fe ren t ways tha t re sea rche rs have thought about invo lve -

P r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s a r t i cl e w a s f a c i li t a te d b y N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n -

d a t i o n G r a n t B N S 8 4 - 1 8 0 3 8 .

W e a r e g r a t e f u l to t h e f o l lo w i n g p eo p l e f o r p r o v i d i n g c o m m e n t s o n a

p r e v i o u s d r a f t o f t h i s a rt i c le : R o b e r t B . C i a l d i n i, R u s s e l l F a z io , A n t h o n y

G r e e n w a l d , S t e p h e n H a r k i n s , M a r t i n H e e sa ck e r, J o n K r o s n i c k , D i a n e

M a c k i e , T h o m a s O s t r o m , S t e v e n J . S h e r m a n , R i c h a r d S o r r e n t i n o , a n d

W e n d y W o o d .

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g t h i s a r t ic l e s h o u l d b e a d d r e s s e d t o R i c h -

a rd E . Pe t ty or Jo hn T . Ca c ioppo, D e pa r tm e n t of Psychology, Ohio S ta te

Unive r s i ty , 1885 Ne i l Ave nue Ma l l , Colum bus , Ohio 43210-1222.

m en t (p. 310). Th at is, the VR I research consis ts largely of

s tud ies condu c ted be fore 1975 tha t were insp i red by soc ial judg-

m en t theory (e .g ., S he r i f & Hov land , 1961) , whereas the O RI

resea rch cons i s t s la rge ly o f s tud ies conduc ted in the pas t decade

tha t w ere ins t iga ted by cogni t ive re sponse theory (Greenwald ,

1968; Petty, Ostro m, & B rock, 1981 ) or the e labo rat ion l ikel i-

hood m od e l o f pe rsuas ion (P e t ty & Cac ioppo , 1981, 1986) . S ec-

ond , Johnso n an d Eagly a rgued tha t the two re sea rch t rad i t ions

have uncovered d i s t inc tive ly d i ffe ren t e ffec ts [o f invo lvem en t ]

on pe rsuas ion (p . 290). Th a t i s , VR I s tud ies have t ended to

show tha t inc reas ing invo lvem ent i s a s soc ia ted wi th reduced

persuas ion (a m a in e ffect fo r invo lvem ent a s p red ic ted by social

judgm ent theo ry ; S he r i f & S beri f, 1967) , bu t OR I s tud ies have

tended to show tha t invo lvem ent interacts with a rgum ent qua l -

i ty such tha t a m anipu la t ion o f a rgum en t cogency has a g rea te r

i m p a c t u n d e r h i g h - in v o l v e m e n t t h a n l o w - i n v o lv e m e n t co n d i -

t ions . In some s tudies the interact ion shows more specif ical ly

tha t inc reas ing invo lvem e nt is a s soc ia ted wi th reduc ed pe rsua -

s ion when the m essage a rgum ents a re weak bu t w i th inc reased

persuas ion when the a rg um e nts a re s t rong (P e t ty & Cac ioppo ,

1979).

n tegra t ive V iew o f nvo lvem en t

Ou r v iew i s tha t Jo hnso n and Eagly ' s (1989) ca tegor ica l d i s -

t i n c ti o n b e t w e e n o u t c o m e a n d v a l u e in v o l v e m e n t i s p r e m a t u r e

and tha t the re i s a m ore pa rs im onious and in tegra t ive m anner

in w hich to v iew the e f fec ts o f invo lvem ent on pe rsuas ion . F ur -

the rm o re , we a rgue tha t the da ta f rom the i r own ana lys i s sup-

por t th i s a l t e rna t ive approach . The a l t e rna t ive v iew (P e t ty &

Cac ioppo , 19 79 , 1986) re l ie s on the no t ion of i s sue invo lve -

3 6 7

A n o t h e r t y p e o f i n v o l v e m e n t r e fe r r e d t o b y J o h n s o n a n d E a g ly a s

i m p r e s s i o n - r e l e v a n t i n v o l v e m e n t a n d b y o t h e r s a s r e s p o n s e i n v o l v e -

m e n t ( e .g . , Cha ike n , 1980; Le ipp e & Elk in , 1987; Pe t ty & Ca c ioppo,

1979; Z im ba rd o , 1960) is w ide ly a c c e pte d a s oc c u r r ing wh e n the s e lf -

pre se nta t iona l c onse que nc e s of one ' s a t t i tude a re s a l i e n t ( c f . C ia ld in i ,

Le vy, He rm a n, K oz lowski , & Pet ty , 1976) a nd i s no t in d i sp ute he re .



68 R I C H A R D E. PETTY A N D J O H N T . C A C I O PPO

m e nt , de f i ne d a s t he e x t e n t t o w h i c h t he a t t i t ud i na l i ss ue un -

de r c ons i de r a t i on i s of per sonal impor tance ( P e t ty & C a c i o p p o ,

1979 , p . 1915 ; i t al i c s a dde d . S e e a l s o A ps l e r & Se a r s , 1968 ;

Kiesler, Col l ins , & Mi l ler , 1969. ) Acc ord ing to th i s v iew, the

t op i c o f a pe r s ua si ve m e s s a ge c a n ha ve pe r s ona l i m po r t a nc e be -

c a us e i t i s r e l a t e d t o a va r i e t y o f s e l f -r e l e va n t c ons t r uc t s s uc h a s

va l ue s , goa ls , pe op l e, a nd ob j e c t s . I n ou r a l t e rna t i ve f r a m e w or k ,

t h e m o s t s e l f -r e le v a n t o r i n v o l v i n g m e s s a g e w o u l d b e o n e a b o u t

t he s e l f (e .g ., a bou t one ' s i n t e ll i ge nc e o r pe r s ona l i t y ) . A l s o o f

i m p or t a nc e , how e ver , w ou l d be m e s s a ge s a bo u t o t he r pe op l e o r

ob j e c t s t ha t a r e r e l e va n t t o t he m e s s a ge r e c ip i e n t , o r ou t c om e s ,

i de a s , va l ue s , a nd e nd s t a t e s t ha t a r e i m por t a n t t o t he pe r s on .

A s M c G u i r e ( 1 9 8 9 ) n o t e d , t h e d i m e n s i o n o f impor tance is

t r a ns c e n de n t a l i n t ha t a ll t op i c s c a n be p r o j e c t e d on i t

w h e t h e r t h e y a r e r e la t iv e ly c o n c r e te ( s u ch a s . . . m o t h e r ) . . .

o r a bs t r a c t i ons ( s uc h a s . . . j u s t i c e ) ( p . 39 ) . Th e c r i t ic a l a s pe c t

o f i s s ue i nvo l ve m e n t i s t ha t t he t op i c o f t he m e s s a ge i s pe rc e i ve d

a s i m p o r t a n t to th e self. Th a t i s, a m e s s a ge pe r c e i ve d a s r e l e va n t

t o

m y

v a l u e o f f r e e d o m ,

m y g o a l

o f o b t a i n i n g a n e d u c a t i o n ,

m y

sister, or

m y

c a r i s m o r e i n v o l v i n g t h a n a m e s s a g e a b o u t

y o u r

va l ue s , goa l s , si bl ings, o r pos s e s s i ons . 2 Fu r t he r m o r e , t he m o r e

i m po r t a n t t h e va l ue , goa l , s i b l ing , o r pos s e s s i on i s to t he s el f,

t he h i ghe r t he l e vel o f i nvo l ve m e n t w i t h a m e s s a ge on t ha t t op i c .

I s it n e c e s s a r y to h a v e t w o o r m o r e k i n d s o f in v o l v e m e n t t o

a c c ou n t f o r m e s s a ge s de a l i ng w i t h i m p or t a n t va l ue s , goa ls , si b -

l ings, p os s e s s ions , a nd s o f o r t h? We t h i nk no t .

I n s t e a d , w e p r o p o s e d t h a t w h e r e t h e t o p i c o f th e m e s s a ge f a l ls

o n t h e p e r s o n a l i m p o r t a n c e

c o n t i n u u m

i s m o r e c r i t i c a l f o r un -

d e r s t an d i n g p e r s u a s io n p r o c e s s e s t h a n w h e t h e r t h e c o m m u n i c a -

t i on t op i c i s one t ha t de a l s w i t h i m por t a n t va l ue s , goa l s , pe op l e ,

o r ob j e c t s . I n a ll c a se s , a s t he pe r s ona l i m por t a nc e o f t he t op i c

i n c re a s e s, r e c i p i e n ts a r e p o s t u l a t e d t o b e c o m e m o r e m o t i v a t e d

t o a l l oc a t e t he i r l i m i t e d c ogn i t i ve r e s ou r c e s t o p r oc e s s i ng t he

m e s s ag e . A s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h is , t h e q u a l i t y o f th e a r g u m e n t s

i n t h e m e s s ag e b e c o m e s a g r e a t e r d e t e r m i n a n t o f i n fl u e n c e

w h e n i n v o l v e m e n t i s h ig h r a t h e r t h a n l o w (P e t t y & C a c i o p p o ,

1979 , 1986). I m por t a n t l y , J oh ns o n a n d Ea g l y ( 1989) t e s t e d t h is

hypo t he s i s i n t he i r r e c t a - a na l ys i s a nd f ound i t t o ho l d w i t h i n

both t h e O R I a n d t h e V R I s t u d ie s . T h e i n t e ra c t i o n o f i n v o lv e -

m e n t a n d a r g u m e n t q u a l i t y w i t h i n b o t h c a t e g o ri e s o f s t u di e s is

p r e d i c t e d b y o u r a l te r n a ti v e v i e w b u t c a n n o t b e e x p l a i n e d b y

s o c i al j u d g m e n t t h e o r y a n d i s a w k w a r d f o r th e J o h n s o n a n d

E a g l y v ie w t h a t t h e t w o k i n d s o f i n v o l v e m e n t a r e c a t e g o ri c a ll y

di f ferent (or ind uc e qual i t a t ive ly d i f ferent processes) . 3

The c ha l l e nge f o r ou r a l t e r na t i ve v i e w i s t o a c c oun t f o r t he

m a i n e f fe c t f o r in v o l v e m e n t t h a t o c c u r s w i t h i n t h e V R I s t u d i e s

t ha t do e s no t o c c u r i n t he O R I s et , a l t hough t h i s m a i n e f f e c t i s

pe r ha ps l e ss i n t e r e s t ing i n l i gh t o f t he i n t e r a c t i on . O ur v i e w is

t h a t i n v o l v e m e n t ( p e rs o n a l i m p o r t a n c e ) p e r s e i s o n e o f se v e ra l

va r i a b l e s ( e. g. , pe r s ona l r e s pons ib i l it y , ne e d f o r c ogn i t i on ) t h a t

af fec t the intens i ty o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s in g , b u t t h a t t h e direc-

t ion

of a ny P r oc e s s i ng b i a s ( r el a ti ve l y f a vo r a b le , un f a v o r a b l e , o r

ne u t r a l ) i s de t e r m i ne d by o t he r va r i a b l es . Fo r e xa m p l e , pos s e s s -

i n g m u c h a t t i t u d e - c o n g r u e n t k n o w l e d g e o r p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e

m i g h t enable pe op l e t o de f e nd t he i r po s i t i ons m or e e ff ec ti ve ly

t ha n c a n pe op l e w i t h l ow know l e dge o r l i t t l e e xpe r i e nc e ( c f .

K r os n i c k , 1988 ; W ood , 1982) . Th i s i s s ue - r e le va n t know l e dge

o r e x p e r i e n c e w o u l d b e m o r e l ik e ly t o b e a c c e s s e d a n d u s e d i n

p r oc e s s i ng i f t he m e s s a ge w a s s e l f -r e l e va n t t ha n i f i t w a s no t .

S i m i l a r l y , be c a us e pe op l e p r e f e r t he i r c u r r e n t pos i t i ons t o be

c o r r e c t , t h e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e m e s s a g e a n d o n e ' s o w n

p o s i t io n m a y m o t i v a t e b i a s e d i n f o r m a t i on p r oc e s s i ng ( i. e. , pe o -

p l e p r e f e r t he i r va l ue s t o be uphe l d , t he i r de s i r e d ou t c om e s t o

be s uppor t e d , a nd t he i r f a vo r i t e pos s e s s i ons t o be p r a i s e d ; c f .

H o w a r d - P i t n e y , B o rg i d a , & O m o t o , 1 9 8 6 ; L o r d , R o s s , & L e p -

pe r, 1979). T h i s m e a ns , f o r e xa m pl e , t ha t i nc r e a s i ng pe r s ona l

i m por t a nc e w i l l e nha nc e p r oc e s s i ng i n a r e l a t i ve l y ob j e c t i ve

f a s h i on w he n pe op l e ha ve r e l a t i ve l y l i t t l e ( o r ve r y ba l a nc e d )

know l e dg e a bou t a t op i c a nd a w e a k o r r e la t ive l y ne u t r a l p r i o r

o p i n i o n , b u t t h a t t h e e n h a n c e d p r o c e s s i n g in d u c e d b y h i g h i n -

v o l v e m e n t b e c o m e s m o r e n e g a ti v el y b i a se d a s p e o p l e ' s a t ti tu d e -

c ongr ue n t know l e dge a nd a t t i t ude s t r e ng t h i nc r e a s e ( c f . Fa z i o ,

1989) . S i m i l a rl y , a s w e no t e d i n a p r e v i ous d i s c us s i on o f in -

v o l v e m e n t ,

The joint consideration of personal relevance and m e ~ discrep-

ancy suggests that as a message becomes m ore counterat t itudinal,

the message arguments m ay have to be stronger to produce the

same degree of acceptance . Likewise , as a m ~ becomes more

p roa tt it ud ina l, t he m ~ a rgum e nt s m ay ha ve t o be w ea ker t o

produce the same degree of rejection. (Pet ty & C acioppo, 1986,

p

88)

F i gu r e 1 de p i c t s t he expected a t t i t ude r e s u l t s w he n bo t h t he

i n t e n s it y o f p r o c e ss i n g a n d t h e d i r e c t i o n o f p r o c e s s i n g b ia s a r e

c ons i de r e d a l ong w i t h t he qua l i t y o f t he a r gu m e n t s i n a m e s s a ge .

E a c h o f h e t h r e e p a n e l s s h o w s t h a t a s th e i n t e n s i t y o f p r o c e s s i n g

i n c r ea s e s ( a s i n d u c e d b y t h e p e r s o n a l im p o r t a n c e o f a m e s s a g e,

f o r e x a m p l e ) , t h e q u a l i t y o f th e a r g u m e n t s a c c o u n t s f o r m o r e

va r i a nc e i n a t ti t ude s . The s pe c i f ic f o r m o f h i s I n t e ns i t y × A r g u -

m e n t Q ua l i t y i n t e r a c t i on va r i e s i n t he t h r e e pa ne l s , how eve r. I n

t he m i dd l e pa ne l , t he i nc r e a s e d p r oc e s s i ng i s r e l a t i ve l y ob j e c -

t ive , s uc h t ha t m or e f a vo r a b l e a t t i tude s r e s u l t w he n s t r on g

a r gum e n t s r e c e i ve i nc r e a s e d s c r u t i ny , bu t l e s s f a vo r a b l e a t t i -

t u d e s r e s u lt w h e n w e a k a r g u m e n t s a r e e v a l ua t e d . I n c o n t r a s t

t o t h i s r e l a t i ve l y ob j e c t i ve p r oc e s s i ng , c ons i de r a pe r s on w ho

i s m o t i va t e d ( e .g ., be c a us e t he m e s s a ge t a ke s a v e r y d i s c r e pa n t

pos i t i on ) a nd a b l e ( e. g. , be c a us e t he pe r s o n pos s e s s e s c ons i de r -

a b l e a t t it u d e - c o n s is t e n t k n o w l e d g e ) t o c o u n t e r a r g u e t h e m e s -

s a ge . Th i s pe r s on ' s ta s k i s a dva nc e d t o t he e x t e n t t ha t t he m e s -

s a ge p ro v i d e s w e a k r a t h e r t h a n s t r o n g a r g u m e n t s i n s u p p o r t o f

i t s pos i t i on , r e s u l t i ng i n t he pa t t e r n de p i c t e d i n t he f i gh t pa n e l

o f F i gu r e 1 . S i m i l ar l y , in t he l e f t pa ne l o f F i gu r e 1 , t he e xpe c t e d

r e s u lt s o f i n c r e a si n g t h e i n t e n si t y o f p r o c e s s i n g a r e s h o w n w h e n

c ond i t i ons f o s t e r a f a vo r a b l e b ia s . H e r e t he pe r s o n ' s t a s k i s a d -

v a n c e d t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e m e s s a g e c o n t a i n s s t r o n g r a t h e r

2 This view is compatible with Sherif and Cantril 's (1947) view of

ego (1947). They wrote that the components of the ego include the

individual's bo dy and p hysical characteristics; the things he learns be -

long to him, such as his clothes, his t o y s . . , his sweetheart , his chil-

dren; together with a w hole host of social values he also learns and with

which he identif ies hims elf--his country, his po li t ic s. . . . (p. 117; see

also Ostrom & Brock, 1968).

3 There are other indications that OR I and VR I produce similar

effects. For example, research has shown that whether involvement is

defined as in the social judgm ent theo ry (VRI) tradition (e.&, by using

latitude of rejection ; Fazio & Zanna, 1978) or in the cognitive re-

sponse (ORI) manner (e.g., by examining people w hose personal out-

come s differ; Sivacek & Crano, 1982), increasing involvem ent is associ-

ated with enhance d attitude-behavior consistency (see review by Ajzen,

1987).



INVOLVEMENT AND PERSUASION

69

f

r

I. 11

Favorable ias No ias

T T

W m F ~ • S l r o ~

i ~ l i ~ l u l l l e f l l i

E r

, , i i , r

m l

Unfavorable ias

i ~ i i l~ m g

A i q ~ n ( l

•

e l lk

A i i i i m e n l i

I I

Low High l Low High l Low High

E L B O R T IO N l E L B O R T I O N l E L B O R T IO N

Figure 1. Hypothesized effects of information processing intensity and direction of bias on attitudes in

response to strong and weak messages (adapted from Communication and PersuasiOn. Central and Periph

eral Routes to Attitude Change by Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo, 1986, p. 34. Copyright 1986 by

Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. Adapted by permission.) (Panel 1: Favorable bias conditions. Panel II: No

bias [relativelyobjective processing]. Panel IIh Unfavorable bias conditions.)

than weak arguments. In sum, our poi nt is that one must con-

sider not only the fact that the personal i mport ance of a message

increases the extent of infor mati on processing activity, but one

must also consider how other factors in the persuasion enviro n-

ment (e.g., knowledge, message position, etc.) affect the direc-

tion o f processing (i.e., do they p roduce a favorable, unfavor-

able, or no bias?)

Confoundings in VRI Research

Given these theoretical considerations, it is noteworthy tha t

two types of confou nding may have motivated or enable d a bias

toward unfavorable processing in the VRI but not in the ORI

studies included i n the John son and Eagly (1989) review. I f so,

this would explain why their meta-analysis found that ORI

studies tended to show the attitude pattern depicted in the m id-

dle panel of Figure 1, but VRI studies tended to yield the pat-

tern depicted in the right panel.4 The two types of confou ndin g

that may have induced an u nfavorable bias in the VRI relative

to the ORI studies are (a) confounding s with the high- versus

low-invol vement distinc tion within the value-relevant studies

and (b) confoun dings with the v alue -out come distinc tion itself.

Regarding the first type of confounding, Johnson and Eagly

(1989, p. 306) wrote,

we suspect that involvement was sometimes correlated to some ex-

tent with variables that could be considered confounds (e.g.,

knowledgeabilityabout issues, confidence in own attitudinal posi-

tion, accessibility of counterarguments), especially in the studies

that varied involvement by classifying ubjects or varying he issue

of the persuasive message [i.e., the VRI studies].

Although they acknowledge these confoundings, they dismiss

them by arguing that the exact nature of any confounding

would have differed across the studies, rendering less plausible

any argument that a single confound explains the effects of

value-relevant invo lvem ent (p. 306). Despite the fact that no

single confo undin g may accoun t for all of the results, it is criti-

cal to note that each of the confoundings that Johnson and

Eagly identified are likely to work in the same direction. That

is, each o f the confou ndings in the VRI studies is plausibly tied

to increased resistance to persuasion. 5 Furthermore, in some

of the VRI studies, the resistance bias in the high-invol vement

conditions is quite blat ant. For example, in the research by Mil-

ler (1965) include d in the VRI set, subjects in the high-involve-

ment condition s were explicitly instructed to list all of the rea-

sons that favored their initial attitudes before receiving the com-

muni cat ion and were further told that the sponsors of the study

agreed with their position and that much evidence supported

it. These aspects of the hig h-involv ementmanipulat ion (absent

4 Johnson and Eagly (1989) were unlikely to uncover the favorable

bias pattern depicted in the left panel of Figure 1 because they excluded

studies or conditions within studies in which subjects received proatti-

tudinal messages (p. 295).

5 The confounds exist in the VRI studies because these studies tend to

be correlational, whereas the ORI research uses experimental designs.



3 7 0 R I C H A R D E . P E T T Y A N D J O H N T . C A C IO P P O

u n d e r l o w i n v o l v e m e n t ) a p p e a r s u f fi c ie n t t o a c c o u n t f o r th e r e -

d u c e d a t t it u d e c h a n g e i t e n g e n d e r e d w i t h o u t t h e n e e d t o a p p e a l

t o t h e c o n c e p t o f v a l u e -r e l ev a n t i n v o l v e m e n t .

E v e n i f w e i g n o r e d a ll c o n f o u n d i n g s w i th i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e

V R I s t ud i e s , how eve r, t he r e a r e s t il l c on f o und s be t w e e n t he s e t s

o f s tu d i e s p la c e d i n t h e V R I a n d O R I c a t e g o ri e s t h a t c a n a c -

c o u n t f o r t h e d i ff e re n t p a t t e rn o f r es u lt s. F o r e x a m p l e , J o h n s o n

a n d E a g i y ( 1 9 8 9 ) r e p o r t e d t h a t p e o p l e g en e r a ll y h a d m o r e

k n o w l e d g e a b o u t t h e t o p i c s u s ed i n t h e v a l u e t h a n i n t h e o u t -

c om e s t ud i e s (p . 297 ) . I f h i gh i nvo l ve m e n t i nc r e a s e s a c c e s s t o

k n o w l e d g e i n b o t h t h e v a l u e a n d o u t c o m e s t u d ie s , b u t s u b j ec t s

i n t he va l ue s t ud i e s ha ve a va i l a b l e m or e a t t i t ude - c ons i s t e n t

k n o w l e d g e , t h e n i n v o l v e m e n t w o u l d p r o d u c e a g r e a t e r r e s i s -

t a nc e t o i n f l ue nc e i n t he va l ue t ha n i n t he ou t c om e s t ud i e s be -

c a us e o f t h i s c on f ou nd ( c f. W ood , 1982) . 6 S i m i l ar l y , J oh ns o n

a n d E a g l y r e p o r t e d t h a t V R I s t u di e s t e n d e d t o r e ly o n c h a n g e

s c o r e s ( e . g . , p r e t e s t - pos t t e s t de s i gns ) , w he r e a s O R I s t ud i e s

t e nde d t o u s e pos t t e s t - on l y de s i gns (p . 297 ) . I n t he V R I s t ud i e s

us i ng a p r e t e s t , i n i ti a l a t t i t ude s m i gh t be m or e h i gh l y a c c e s si b l e

a nd a va i l a b l e t o b i a s p r oc e s s i ng t ha n i n t he pos t t e s t - on l y O R I

s t ud i e s , e s pe c i a l l y w he n m o t i va t i on t o p r oc e s s w a s h i gh ( c f .

Fa z i o , 1989) . A s a th i r d e x a m p l e , w e no t e t ha t t he r e l at i vel y

l a r ge d i f f e re nc e i n t he a ve r a ge pub l i c a t i on da t e f o r the V R I s t ud -

ies ( i.e ., 1970) versus the O RI s tudies ( i .e . , 1 984) ma y pose prob -

l e m s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i on , e s pe c i a l l y f o r e f fe c t s i nvo l v i n g a r gum e n t

q u a li ty . O n e p o s s ib l e p r o b l e m i s t h a t J o h n s o n a n d E a g i y ' s c o n -

t e m po r a r y r a t e rs , j udg i ng f r om t he pe r s pe c ti ve o f t he 1980s ,

m a y h a v e o v e r e s t im a t e d t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e a r g u m e n t s u s e d i n

t h e o l d e r V R I s tu d ie s . T h i s m i g h t o c c u r i f a r g u m e n t s t h a t w e r e

c on t r ove r s i a l i n pa s t de c a de s r e ga r d i ng va r i ou s s oc i a l a nd po l i t i -

c a l i ss ue s (e .g ., b i r t h c on t r o l ) w e r e m or e a c c e p t a b l e t oda y . Fo r

e x a m p l e , t h e a r g u m e n t s i n f a v o r o f U . S . p o l ic y d u r i n g t h e V i e t-

n a m W a r ( G a n t , 1 9 7 0 ) m i g h t h a v e s e e m e d w e a k e r t o u n d e r -

g r a d u a t e s d u r i n g t h e t u r b u l e n t 1 9 6 0 s t h a n t h e y d o t o t o d a y ' s

m o r e po l i t ic a l l y c ons e r va t i ve c o l l ege s t ude n t s . I f t he s t r on g

a r g u m e n t s u s e d i n s o m e o f t h e V R I s t u d i es w e r e w e a k e r o r m o r e

c on t r ove r s i a l f o r t he s ub j e c t s a t t he t i m e o f t he r e s e a r c h t ha n

t h e y a p p e a r t o r a t er s t o d a y , t h is c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r t h e g r e a t e r

a p p a r e n t r e j e c ti o n o f th e s t r o n g a r g u m e n t s i n t h e V R I t h a n i n

t he O R I s t ud ie s . 7

Summar y

I n s u m , a l t h o u g h w e a c k n o w l e d g e t h e v i e w t h a t t w o h i s to r i ca l

t r a d i t i ons o f i nvo l v e m e n t r e s e a r c h c a n be i de n t if i ed , w e que s -

t i o n J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y ' s ( 1 9 8 9 ) c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t w o c a t e g o r ie s

o f i n v o l v e m e n t a r e n e e d e d t o a c c o u n t f o r p e r s u as i o n e f f e ct s b e -

c a us e i t i s no t c l e a r i f the p r oc e s s e s r e l e va n t t o p e r s ua s i on i n -

duc e d by s e l f - r e le va nc e pe r s e i n t he s e t r a d i t i ons d if fe r. I n s t e a d ,

t h e J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y m e t a - a n a ly s i s s h o w s t h a t w h e n i n v o l v e -

m e n t i s h i gh ( w he t he r va l ue r e l e va n t o r ou t c om e r e l e va n t ) , t he

q u a l i t y o f t h e a r g u m e n t s i n a m e s s a g e a c c o u n t s f o r m o r e v a r i -

a nc e i n a t t i t ude s t ha n w h e n i nvo l ve m e n t i s l ow . Th i s , o f c ou r s e ,

d i r e c t l y s uppo r t s ou r v i e w t ha t s e l f - re l e va nc e inc r e a s e s t he e x -

t e n t o f m e s s a ge p r oc e s s ing . Th e i nc r e a s e d r e s i s t a nc e f ou nd i n

V R I s t u d i e s a s c o m p a r e d w i t h O R I s t u d i e s c a n b e a c c o u n t e d

f o r c om pl e t e l y by t he c on f ound i ngs ( e . g . , a t t i t ude - c ongr ue n t

k n o w l e d g e , a tt i tu d e e x t r e m i t y ) t h a t a r e e i t h e r d o c u m e n t e d o r

p l a us i b l y p r e s e n t i n t he V R I r e s e a r c h .

R e p l i c a b i l i ty a n d G e n e r a l i t y o f t h e

O u t c o m e I n v o l v e m e n t E f fe c t

A l t h o u g h a t s o m e l ev el J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y ( 1 9 8 9 ) a p p a r e n t l y

a c c e p t e d t h e p a t t e r n o f r e s u lt s f o r o u t c o m e i n v o l v e m e n t m a n i p -

u l a t i ons ( a s t he y r e l i e d on t he s e r e s u l t s t o d i f f e r e n ti a t e ou t c om e

f r om va l ue i nvo l ve m e n t ) , t he y ne ve r t he l e s s que s t i on w he t he r

t h e o u t c o m e e ff e ct s a r e o b t a i n e d o n l y b y O h i o S t a t e r e s e a rc h -

e r s. T h e O h i o S t a t e r e s u lt s a re d e f i n ed b y p a p e r s a u t h o r e d o r

c o - a u t h o r e d b y i n v e st ig a t o rs w h o o b t a i n e d t h e P h D f r o m

O h i o S t a t e U n i ve r s i t y i n t he la t e 197 0s ( J oh ns on & Ea g ly ,

1989 , p . 304 ; e . g . , Le i ppe & E l k i n , 1987 ; Pe t t y , C a c i oppo , &

H e e s a c ke r , 1981) . G i ve n t he a t t e n t i on t ha t J ohns on a nd Ea g l y

g iv e t o t h e O h i o S t a te g r o u p a n d t o p o s s ib l e e x p l a n a ti o n s a s t o

w h y t h i s g r o u p b u t n o t o t h e r s o b t a i n e d t h e e f f ec t, r e ad e r s m a y

b e s u r p r i s ed t o l e a r n t h a t J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y r e p li c a te d t h e

O h i o S t a t e r e s u l t s t he m s e l ve s be f o r e f i na l a c c e p t a nc e o f t he i r

ar t i c le for PsychologicalBulletin.

The Johnson Eagly and Other Replications

I n a 1 9 8 8 d is s e rt a ti o n b y J o h n s o n t h a t w a s s u p e rv i s e d b y

Ea g ly , t w o a t t e m pt s w e r e m a de t o r e p l i c a t e ou r fi nd i ngs by r e -

p r o d u c i n g a s c lo s e ly a s po s s ib l e t h e p r o c e d u r e s a n d m a t e r i a ls o f

t h e p r o t o t y p i c a l P e t t y a n d C a c i o p p o i n v o l v e m e n t a n d a t t it u d e

c ha ng e e xp e r i m e n t ( J ohn s on , 1988 , p . 9 ). Pa ne l I i n F i gu r e 2

p r e s e n t s ou r in i t i a l a t t i t ude r e s u l ts . Th e ne x t t w o pa ne l s p r e s e n t

t h e r e s u lt s f r o m t h e t w o e x p e r i m e n t s b y J o h n s o n ( 1 9 8 8 ). I n h i s

f ir st r e p l ic a t i o n a t te m p t , t h e I n v o l v e m e n t x A r g u m e n t Q u a l i t y

interac t ion was not s ta t i s t i ca l ly s igni f icant ; however , cons i s tent

w i t h ou r i n t e r a c t i on pa t t e r n , i nd i v i dua l c e l l c om pa r i s ons i nd i -

c a t e d t ha t a r gu m e n t qu a l i t y ha d a s i gn i f i c a n t e f f e c t on a t t i t ude s

u n d e r h i g h b u t n o t l o w i n v o l v e m e n t ( s ee P a n e l I I) . In J o h n s o n ' s

s e c o n d r e p l ic a t i o n a t t e m p t , t h e i n t e r a c ti o n p a t t e r n a p p e a r e d

a ga i n a nd t h i s t i m e p r ove d t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i gn i f i c a n t ( s e e

Panel I I I ) .s

6 John son an d E agly (1989) argued tha t involvement and know ledge

may be confounded in man y natural set tings (see also Abelson, 1988).

We have also no ted this (e.g., Pet ty & Cacioppo, 1986) but do not feel

that this provides a comp elling ustification against examining the sepa-

rate contributions to the persuasion process.

7 Likewise, it is possible that c urre nt sub jects underestimated the

weakness of certain arguments as they appeared to subjects in past

decades. The important point is that because of the t ime confounding,

it is difficult to directly compare the VRI and ORI studies for effects

depend ent on the ratings of contemporary judg es. Another issue relat-

ing to judges ' rat ings of argument qu ality in the Johnson and Eagly

(1989) rev iew is that their judges w ere specifically instructed to ignore

their own views when rating argument quality, whereas in developing

the strong and weak argument manipulations used in ou r research, we

allow subjects to c onsider their own attitudes wh en responding . Further-

more, in o ur procedure, subjects do n ot simply rate the arguments as

strong or weak but are asked to provide a cognit ive react ion to the argu-

ment to ensure th at counterargning the strong arguments is unlikely

even when the subject considers his or her own position (for further

detail on these procedures, see Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

s W e only graph the conditions from Johnson 's (1988) second study that

were conducted as an explicit replication of o ur work. In some addit ional

condit ions of his experiment, subjects were provided with som e back-

ground information abou t the topic before message exposure. The effect

of this background information was to increase pro tx~ ng of he

m e s s g e

overall so that only a main effect for argume nt qua lity was observed.



I N V O L V E M E N T A N D P ER S UA S IO N 3 7 1

w

<

H I

<

+ 0 . 7 .

÷ 0 . 0 .

+ 0 . $ .

+014,

0.3.

+ O Z .

+ I . t

0 . 0 -

- 0 . 1 -

- 0 . 2 -

- 0 3 -

- 0 . 4 -

- 0 5 T

-0 IL~-

-0 7T

+0.7

+0.6.

+O.S,

÷0.4-

+0.3.

*0.2-

+0,1

0.0-

-01-

-02--

- 0 5 T

-06T

-07T

I i

Petty Cacioppo 1979)

- - t r o n g

An~Uments

I t

L o w H i gh

I N V O L V E M E N T

I I I

Johnson (1988, Experiment 2)

t r o n g

• ~ Al'~glTt•nt

I I

L o w

H i gh


+07

÷0 6/

÷05~-

+04~-

+0 3T

+02T

. 0 ] -

-05 -

-06T

Q7T

5e I

5

5O

40

38--

I

: ' T

3 , , ~ -

I t

Johnson (I 988, Experiment )

~ = s~mng

A f g u m e f l a

I ~

t ~ e W u k

Argumo~=

I 4

L o w H i g h


I V

Burnkrant Unnava I 989

/ •

t r o n g

Af~umont~J

e ~ • Weak

Arguments

I

L o w

H i gh


Figure 2. The in te rac t ion o f invo lvement and a rgum ent qua l i ty in four exper iments . (Pane l I : Da ta f rom

Pet ty Cac ioppo [ 1979] . Pane l I I : Da ta f rom Joh nson [ 1988, Exper iment 1 . Pane l I II : Da ta f rom Johnson

[1988 , Exper im ent 2] . Pane l IV: Da ta f rom B urnkra n t Unn ava [ in p ress] . Pane l s I , II , and I I I r epor t

at t i tude da ta in s tan dard scores and Pan el IV reports at t i tude data o n a 7-p oint scale . In each case, higher

num ber s indicate more favorable postmessage at t i tud es toward th e topic.)

J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y (1 9 8 9 ) w e r e c e r t a i n l y a w a r e o f t h e i r s u c -

c e s s fu l r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e O h i o S t a t e r e s u l t s b e f o r e a c c e p t a n c e

o f t h e i r a r ti c l e , b u t t h e y c h o s e n o t t o d i s c lo s e t h i s to r e a d e r s . I t

i s n o t c l e a r w h y J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y w o u l d w a n t t o l e a ve r e ad e r s

o f Psychological Bulletin w i t h t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t o n l y O h i o

S t a t e r e s e a rc h e r s c a n o b t a i n t h e e f fe c t w h e n t h e y h a v e o b t a i n e d

i t t h e m s e l v e s . I t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e M e t h o d s e c -

t i o n o f th e i r r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e y s t o p p e d s e a r c h i n g s t a n -

d a r d d a t a b a s e s ( e . g . , Disser ta tion Abs t rac t s I n te rna t iona l i n

m i d - 1 9 8 7 o r e a r li e r ; h o w e v er , t h e i r a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e s a 1 9 8 8

m a s t e r ' s th e s is a n d t w o 1 9 88 d i s s e r ta t i o n s b u t n o t J o h n s o n ' s

1 9 8 8 d i s s e r t a t i o n , p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d .

A l t h o u g h t h e J o h n s o n ( 1 9 8 8 ) r e p l i c a t i o n m a y b e t h e m o s t

p e r s u a s i v e o n e p o s s i b l e s i n c e i t c o m e s f r o m t h e c h i e f c r it i c s o f

t h e e f fe c t, i t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t o t h e r s t u d i e s c i t e d i n t h e

J o h n s o n a n d E a g ly ( 1 9 8 9 ) a r t ic l e c o n t a i n r e p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e i n i -

t i a l P e t t y a n d C a c i o p p o ( 1 9 7 9 ) r e s u l t a s w e l l ( i. e ., H u d d l e s t o n ,

1 9 8 6 ; S o r r e n t i n o , B o b o c e l , G i t t a , O l s o n , H e w i t t , 1 9 8 8 ). 9

9 Johns on an d Eag ly (1989) e l imina ted the H uddles ton (1986) s tudy

from th eir meta-an alysis because he fai led to includ e sufficient infor ma -

t ion in his text so that they could calculate effect s izes, and they col-

lapsed across a cr i t ical ind ividua l difference v ariable in the Sorr entin o

et al . (1988) s tudy, mas king the fact that th e effect was replicated by on e



37 R I C H A R D E. PETTY A N D J O H N T . C A C I O PPO

N e ve r t he l e s s , w hy ha ve s om e i nve s t i ga t o r s a t t e m p t e d t o r e p l i -

c a t e t he r e s u l t a nd f a i le d? We be li e ve tha t t h i s ha s oc c u r r e d be -

c a u s e a l t h o u g h m a n y o f th e s t u d ie s h a v e m o d e l e d t h e f o r m o f

ou r i nve s t i ga ti ons , s e ve r al ha ve m od i f i e d ( o r no t i nc l ude d ) s om e

c r i t ic a l s ubs t a n t i ve f e a t u re s . A s one e xa m pl e , c on s i de r t he d i s -

s e r ta t io n b y H o m e r ( 1 9 8 7 ) c it e d b y J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y a s a f a il -

u r e t o r e p li c at e . I n t h i s s tu d y , H o m e r m o d e l e d h e r i n v o l v e m e n t

m a n i p u l a t i o n a f t e r o n e p r e v i o u s l y u s e d b y u s . I n o u r s t u d y

( Pet ty , C a c i opp o , & Sc hum a nn , 1983) , i nvo l v e m e n t w i t h a t a r-

g e t c o n s u m e r p r o d u c t w a s m a n i p u l a t e d b e f o r e e x p o s u r e t o a n

a dve r t i s e m e n t f o r it . Sub j e c t s w e r e t o l d t ha t t he p r od uc t w o u l d

be a va i l a b le i n t he i r loc a l a r e a s oon ( h i gh i nvo l ve m e n t ) o r t ha t

i t w o u l d n o t ( lo w i n v o lv e m e n t ) , a n d t h a t a f t e r a d e x p o s u r e t h e y

w ou l d be a s ke d t o s e l e c t a g i f t f r om a m ong a l t e r na t i ve b r a nds

o f th e p r o d u c t ( h ig h i n v o l v e m e n t) o r f r o m a m o n g b r a n d s o f

a n o n t a r g e t p r o d u c t c a te g o r y. H o m e r (1 9 8 7 ) m a n i p u l a t e d t h e

p e r c ei v e d a v a il a b il it y o f t h e p r o d u c t ( a s w e d i d ) b u t e n h a n c e d

t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n b y t e l li n g h i g h - i n v o l v e m e n t s u b j e ct s t h a t t h e y

w o u l d b e e n t er e d i n a l o tt e r y i n w h i c h t h e g r a n d p r i z e w a s

i d e n ti fi e d a s t h e p r o d u c t s h o w n i n t h e e x p e r im e n t a l a d . I n t h e

l ow - i nvo l ve m e n t c ond i t i ons , t he l o t t e r y p r i z e w a s i de n t if i e d a s

c ons i s t i ng o f don a t i on s f r om l oc a l r e t a il e s t a b l i s hm e n t s ( p .

30 ) . I n H om e r ' s r e s e a rc h , t he n , h i gh - i nvo l ve m e n t s ub j e c t s w e r e

l e d t o be l ie ve t ha t t he y m i gh t a c t ua l l y

win

t h e p r o d u c t t h a t a p -

pe a r e d i n t he c r i t i c a l a d ( a s t e r e o ) , w he r e a s ou r h i gh - i nvo l ve -

m e n t s ub j e c t s w e r e l e d t o be li e ve t ha t t he y w ou l d ha ve t o m a ke

a decisiona b o u t w h i c h b r a n d a m o n g s e v er a l i n t h e p r o d u c t c a t -

e go r y ( d i s pos a b l e r a z o r ) t he y s hou l d s e l e c t f o r t he m s e l ve s . O ur

s u b j ec t s w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y b e m o t i v a t ed t o e v a l u a te t h e b r a n d

f e a t u r e d i n t h e a d s o t h a t t h e y c o u l d m a k e a n i n f o r m e d c h o i c e .

H o m e r ' s s ub j ec t s, h a v i n g n o i n f lu e n c e o v e r w h i c h b r a n d t h e y

w o u l d g e t, c o u l d o n l y h o p e t h a t t h e b r a n d f e a t u r e d i n t h e a d

( t h a t w h i c h t h e y m i g h t w i n ) w a s a g o o d o n e . A s m i g h t b e e x -

pe c t e d b y t he pos i t iv i t y b ia s s e t up b y t h i s m a n i pu l a t i on , h i gh -

i n v o l v e m e n t s u b j ec t s e v a lu a t e d t h e p r o d u c t a s m o r e d e s i r ab l e

t ha n d i d l ow - i nvo l ve m e n t s ubj ec ts .~°

The Outcome Involvement Manipulation

A n o t h e r c o n c e r n J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y ( 1 9 8 9 ) ra i s e d a b o u t t h e

O R I re s e a r c h i s t h e l a c k o f v a r i e ty o f m a n i p u l a t i o n s u s e d (p .

3 0 8 ). T h a t i s, i n t h e a c c u m u l a t e d O R I e x p e r i m e n t s , o n l y th r e e

m a n i p u l a t i o n s o f i n v o l v e m e n t h a v e b e e n u s e d , a ll o f w h i c h w e r e

p l a us i b l y t i e d d i re c t l y t o ou t c o m e s t ha t w e r e o r w e r e no t r e l e -

va n t t o t he s ub j e c t s ( e. g. , i n s t i t u ti ng c o m p r e he ns i ve e x a m s be -

f o r e [ h i gh i nvo l ve m e n t ] o r a f t e r [ low i nvo l ve m e n t ] t he s ub j e c t s

personality type ( uncertainty oriented ) bu t not the other ( ce rtainty

oriented ). To resolve the inconsistency with past work, Sorrentino e t

al. speculated and prov ided some evidence consistent with the idea that

the Canadian students in their study were more certainty oriented th an

the A merican students used in previous research (p. 368). We also think

that i t is important to note that , in accord w ith our view of the e f f e t s

of involvement, (a) in addition to Joh nson ( 1988, Experiment 1), other

studies hav e obtained a statistically significant attitude difference be-

tween the strong and weak argument condit ions under high but not low

(outcome) involvement (e.g., Axsom, Y ates, & Chaiken, 1987); and (b)

nonpersuasion studies that have used the OR1 manipulat ion have shown

that it is effective in increasing information processing activity (e.g.,

Brickner, Harkins, & Ostrom, 1986).

g r a d ua t e d f r om c o ll ege ). I f t he s a m e e f f e c ts c ou l d b e s how n f o r

a m a n i pu l a t i on t ha t c l e a r l y i nvoke d s e l f - r e l e va nc e bu t t ha t d i d

n o t d i r e c t l y m a n i p u l a t e t h e o u t c o m e - r e l e v a n c e o f th e a d v o -

c a t e d pos i t i on , t he n w e c ou l d be m o r e c on f i de n t t ha t t he e f f e c t

i s no t c on f i n e d t o one c l a s s o f m a n i pu l a t i ons . I n t e re s t ing l y , a

r e c e n t s t u d y b y B u r n k r a n t a n d U n n a v a ( i n p re s s ) a d d r e s s e d t h is

i ss u e. I n t h e ir s t u d y , t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n o f i n v o l v e m e n t c o n -

c e r n e d w h e t h e r t h e p r o n o u n s u s e d i n t h e m e s s a g e w e r e c h o s e n

t o i nvoke s e l f- r e f e re nc i ng ( e. g. , w h e n your r a z o r s h o w e d s i g n s

o f r u s t ) a n d s e l f - re f l e c ti on

( you

m a y r e m e m b e r f e e l i n g . . . )

o r no t ( e. g. , w h e n one's r a z o r . . . , 'onem i gh t ha ve f e l t ;

i t a l i c s a d d e d ) . T h i s m a n i p u l a t i o n w a s c o m b i n e d w i t h o n e o f

a r gu m e n t qua l it y . Th e a t t i tude r e s u lt s , p r e s e n t e d i n Pa ne l I V o f

F i gu r e 2 , r e p l i c a t e d o u r i n i t ia l f i nd i ng ( Pe t ty & C a c i opp o , 1979)

w i t h a ve r y d i f f e re n t m a n i pu l a t i on o f s e l f- r e le va nc e .

Summary

I n s u m , t h e O R I e f f ec t a p p e a r s t o b e o b t a i n e d b y m o r e t h a n

t h e O h i o S t at e r e s e a rc h e r s r e f e rr e d t o b y J o h n s o n a n d E a g ly

( 1989 ; e .g ., L e i ppe & E l k i n , 1987 ; Pe t t y , C a c i op po , & G o l d m a n ,

1981) . R a t he r , i t is now c l e a r t ha t t he e f f e c t ha s be e n o b t a i ne d

b y o t h e r i n v e s t ig a t o rs ( in c l u d i n g J o h n s o n a t P u r d u e ) a n d i s n o t

l i m i te d t o j u s t o n e c l a s s o f m a n i p u l a t i o n s .

C r i t iq u e o f M e t a - A n a l y s is P r o c e d u r e s

M e t a - a n a ly s e s h a v e b e e n c h a m p i o n e d f o r m a k i n g l i t e ra t u r e

r e v ie w s m o r e o b je c ti v e. T h e J o h n s o n a n d E a g l y (1 9 8 9 ) m e t a -

a na l ys is , how e ver , i s i l lu s t r at i ve o f t he s ub j e c t i ve j udg m e n t s a nd

d e c i si o n s t h a t c a n b e i n v o l v e d . F o r e x a m p l e , a l t h o u g h s o m e a u -

t h o r s h a v e a r g u e d t h a t c o m m i t m e n t m a n i p u l a t i o n s a r e r e le -

va n t t o i nvo l ve m e n t ( e. g. , Pa l l a k , Mue i l e r, D o l la r , & PaU a k ,

1972) , J oh ns o n a n d Ea g l y de c i de d t o e xc l ude th i s r e s e a r c h f r om

t h e i r re v i ew b e c a u s e i t is n o t a t a ll cl e a r t h a t t h e c o m m i t m e n t

m a n i pu l a t i ons u s e d i n pe r s ua s i on s t ud i e s i n f l ue nc e d t he e x t e n t

t o w h i c h t he pe r s ua s ive m e s s a ge a c ti va t e d s ub j e c t s ' va l ue s ( p .

291 ) . Y e t s t ud i e s u s i ng w i d t h o f t he la t i t ude o f r e j e c t i on a s a n

i nd i c a t i on o f i nvo l v e m e n t w e r e i nc l ude d i n t he i r a na l ys is e ve n

t h o u g h t h e y r e p o r t n o e v i d e n c e th a t l a ti tu d e s i n f l u e n ce t h e e x -

t e n t o f va l ue a c t i va t i on .

A s e c o n d i n c o n s i s te n c y c o n c e r n s t h e a u t h o r s ' c l a im t o h a v e

e l i m i n a t e d s tu d i e s w i t h o b v i o u s l y c o n f o u n d e d m a n i p u l a -

t i ons ( p . 294 ) . I t i s no t c le a r w h a t t he y m e a n b y th i s . Fo r e xa m -

p l e , Ta b l e 1 i n t he i r r e po r t r e ve a ls t ha t t h r e e o f t he V R I s t ud i e s

~0 Perhaps the m ost imp ortant aspect o f our research that has no t

been followedclosely,we believe, concerns the argum ent quality m anip-

ulation. In our research, the arguments must meet certain criteria in

pilot test ing before use in the research, and we have had to modify these

argume nts over time and f or subjects at different institutions. For exam -

ple, the weak argum ents used in the initial Petty and Cacioppo (1979)

study prove d insufficiently weak in a subseque nt experimen t (i.e., they

elicited a relatively even mixture of favorable and unfavorable thoug hts

rather than primarily u nfavorable responses). Nevertheless, the creation

of a different set o f even weaker arguments ( labeled v ery weak) was

sufficient to produce the de sired effect (Petty, Harkins, & W illiams,

1980, see also Cacioppo, Petty, & M orris, 1983). Other researchers have

either used the arguments from one of our studies without examining

whether they met the criteria for heir popu lations or have selected argu-

ments acco rding to criteria different from o urs.



INVOLVEMENT AND PERSUASION 373

were explicitly coded into a knowledge varied with involve-

men t category, suggesting an obvi ous confou nd. Also, stud-

ies that used different topics for the high- and low-inv olvement

manipula tions introduced likely confounds. For example, in

the Rhine and Severance (1970) study, students would clearly

be more o p p o s e d to the high-involvementadvocacy (increasing

tuiti on at their school) than to the low -involvem ent topic (in-

creasing park size in a distant city). Furthermore , it is unlikely

that the argum ents would have been equated for strength across

the two topics. One might also wonder why this study is classi-

fied as one of VRI rather than ORI as tuition clearly affects

students ' outcomes, whereas distant park sizes do not. Th e au-

thors explain this apparent anomaly by noting that tuition was

being actively discussed by the [co mmun ity and a] march on the

State Capitol had been held to protes t suggestions for increased

tui tion (p. 296). In our view, this justific ation could easily

have been offered to exp lain the obvious outcome-rele vance of

the t uitio n increase and certainly suggests the high level of op-

position to this topic as compared with the one on park acreage.

Joh nso n and Eagly (1989) deliberately excluded other studies in

which investigators compa red groups differing in their initial

stands on issues (p. 294), and they even elimi nated two con-

sumer studies in which a difference in attitudes toward the

products p r o b a b l y existed prior to the experi mental session (p.

295; italics added). Clearly, different standards were used for

different studies. Some studies were excluded only when there

was pro of from data (p. 294) of confoundi ngs, but others

were not. Some studies were eliminated when confoundings

probably existed but other studies with probable confound-

ings were retained in the analysis.~l Although these decisions

may not have had a ma jor imp act on the overall results of their

meta-analysis, our discussion suggests that meta-analyses are

not necessarily immune to the subjective factors involved in

interp reting individual experiments (Petty, Kasmer, Haugtvedt,

& Cacioppo, 1987).

Conc lus ions

Our view is that it is prem atur e to differentiate value from

outcome involvement on the basis of the two traditions of

research th at have developed or on the seemingly different pat-

tern of resul ts observed for stud ies classified int o each category.

The more re markabl e finding in o ur view is the s i m i l a r i t y of the

results for the two clusters of studies. That is, in each case as

involvement increased, the quality of the arguments presented

became a more impo rtant det ermin ant of persuasion. This pat-

tern is expected if both traditions of involvement manipula-

tions affect persuasion by infl uencin g he extent of message pro-

cessing. The increased resistance induced by involvement

found in the VRI bu t not the ORI studies can be attributed to

factors confounded with VRI, or factors confounded with the

value-outcome categories of research. Of course, we are in

agreeme nt with Johnso n and Eagly that final settlement of this

issue awaits relevant prima ry research.

t~ Just as it seems clear that some of the studies that Johnson and

Eagly (1989) classified as VRI used topics with obvious outcome im-

plications (i.e., restricting teenage driving, draft deferments for college

students), it a lso seems likely that some of the topics of ORI studies

related to central values (e.g., the topic of restricting college dormitory

visits relates to the value of freedom ).

References

Abelson, R. P. (1988). Conviction.

American Psychologist, 43,

267-275.

Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction

of behavior of personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz

(Ed.),

Advances in experimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.

20, pp. 1-63).

New York: Academic Press.

Apsler, R., & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involvement, and

attitude change.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 162-

166.

Axsom, D., Yates, S. M., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a

heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 53, 30-40.

Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of

personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social

loafing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763-769.

Burnkrant, R., & Unnava, R. (in press). Self-referencing:A strategy for

increasing processingof message content.

Personality and Social Psy-

chology B ulletin.

Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. (1983). Effects of need for

cognition on message evaluation, argument recall, and persuasion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing

and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.

Cialdini, R. B., Levy, A., Herman, C. P., Kozlowski, L. T., & Petty,

R. E. (1976). Elastic shifts of opinion: Determinants of direction and

durability.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 663-672.

Fazio, R. H. (1989). On the power and functionality of attitudes: The

role of attitude accessibility. n A. Pratkanis, S. Breckler, & A. Green-

wald (Eds.),Attitu de structure and function (pp. 153-179). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to

the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship.

Journal of Experi-

me ntal So cial Psychology, 14,

398-408.

Gant, V. W. (1970). Attitude change as a function of source credibility

and levels of involvement (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University,

1970).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 31,

3074A.

Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive earning, cognitiveresponse to per-

suasion, and attitude change. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrom

(Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147-170). New

York: Academic Press.

Homer, P. M. (1987). Surrealism and advertising: A test of alternative

explanations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1986).

Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2657A.

Howard-Pitney, B., Borgida, E., & Omoto, A. M. (1986). Personal in-

volvement: An examination of processing differences.

Social Cogni-

tion, 4, 39-57.

Huddleston, B. M. (1986). An experimental investigation of the influ-

ences deceptive nonverbal cues exert on persuasive processes (Doc-

toral dissertation, Universityof Missouri--Columbia, 1985).

Disser-

tation Abstracts International, 47,

709A.

Johnson, B. (1988).

The effects of involvement, argument strength, and

topic knowledge on persuasion.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Purdue University.

Johnson, B., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persua-

sion: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.

Kiesler, C. A., Collins, B. E., & Miller, N. (1969). Attitude change. A

critical analysis of heoretical approaches. New York: Wiley.

Krosnick, J. A. (1988). Attitude importance and attitude change.

Jour-

nal o f Experimental Social Psychology, 24,

240-255.

Leippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue in-

volvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,

269-278.

Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and atti-

tude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently con-



74 R I C H A R D E . P E T T Y A N D J O H N T . C A C I O P P O

sidered evidence. Journal o f Persona lity and Social Psychology 37

2 0 9 8 - 2 1 0 9 .

McG ui re , W. J . (1989) . T he s t ruc tu re o f ind iv idua l a t t i tudes and a t t i -

tude systems. In A. Pratkanis , S. Breckler , & A. Greenwald (Eds.) ,

Attitude structure and u nction

(pp. 37 -69). H il lsdale, N J" Erlb aum .

Mi l le r , N . (1965) . In vo lvem ent and dogmat i sm as inh ib i to r s o f a t t i tude

change.

Journal o f Experim ental Social Psychology 1

121-132 .

Ostro m, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1968). A cognit ive mod el of at t i tud inal

invo lvement . In R . Abe lson , E . Aronson , W. McG ui re , T . Newcomb,

M. Rosenberg, & P . Ta nne nba um Eds .) , Theories o f cognitive consis-

tency:A sourcebook

(pp. 373-38 3). Chicago: Ra nd McNally.

Pallak, M. S., Mueller, M., Dollar, K., & Pallak, J. (1972). Effect of

com mitm ent on responsiveness to an ex t reme cons onan t comm uni -

cat ion. Journal o f Personality and So cial Psychology 23 429--436.

Petty, R. E., & Caciopp o, J . T. (1979). Issue involvem ent can increase

or decrease persuasion by e nha ncin g message-relevant c ognit ive re-

sponses.

Journal o f Persona lity and Social Psychology 37

1915-

1926.

Petty, R. E., & C acioppo, J. T . ( 1981 ).

Attitudes and persuasion: Classic

and contemp orary approaches. D u b u q u e , I A : W m . C . B r o w n .

Petty, R. E., & C acioppo, J . T. (1986).

Commu nication and persuasion:

Central and peripheral routes to attitude chang e.

New Y ork: Springer-

Verlag.

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J . T., & Gold ma n, R. ( 1981). Personal involve-

men t a s a de te rmin an t o f a rgument -based pe rsuas ion .Journal o f Per-

sonality and Social Psychology 41 847-855 .

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M . (1981 ). Effects o f rbetor i-

cal quest io ns on p ersuasion: A cognit ive response analysis .

Journal of

Personality and Soc ial Psychology 40

4 3 2 - 4 4 0 .

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J . T., & Schu ma nn, D. (1983). Cen tral and pe-

r ipheral ro utes to advert is ing effect iveness: The mo derat ing role of

invo lvement . Journal o f Consumer Research 10, 135- 46.

Petty, R. E., Hark ins, S. G., & Will iam s, K. D. (1980). Th e effects of

g roup d i f fus ion o f cogn i tive ef fo r t on a t t itudes : An in fo rm at ion p ro -

cessing view.

Journal of Personali ty and Social Psychology 38 81 -

92.

Petty, R. E ., Kasmer, J . A., H augtvedt , C. P., & C acioppo, J . T. (1987).

Source an d message factors in persuas ion: A rep ly to Stiff ' s cr i t ique

of the Elabo rat ion Likelihood Model .

Comm unication Monographs

54

2 3 3 - 2 4 9 .

Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). (1981).

Cognitive

responses in persuasion.

Hil l sda le , N J: E r lbaum .

Rh ine, R . J . , & Severance, L. J . (1970). Eg o-involve men t, discrepancy,

source credibil i ty , and at t i tude change. Journal of Personali ty and So-

ciaI Psychology 16 175-190 .

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs attitudes and values: A theory of organiza-

t ion and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sherif , M., & Cantr i l , H. (1947). Th e psychology o f ego-involvements:

Social a ttitudes and identifications. New Y ork: Wiley.

Sherif , M ., & Hov land, C. I . (1961).

Social judgme nt: Assimilation and

contrast effects in comm unication and attitude change.

New Haven ,

CT: Yale Un iversi ty Press.

Sherif , M ., & Sherif , C. W. (1967). Att i tu de as the ind ividu al ' sown ca te -

gories : The social judgmen t - invo lvem ent approach to a t t i tude an d

att i tude change. In C. W . Sherif & M . Sh erif (Eds.) ,

Attitude ego-

involvement and change

(pp. 105-139). New York: Wiley.

Sivacek, J . , & Crano , W. D. (1982). Vested interest as a mo derato r of

at t i tude-beh avior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social P sy-

chology 43

210-221 .

Sorre ntino, R. M ., Bobocel, D. R., Git ta , M . Z., Olson, J . M., & Hewitt,

E . C . (1988). Unc er ta in ty o r ien ta t ion and pe rsuas ion : Ind iv idua l

differences i n the effects of personal relevance o n social judgm ents.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology 55 357 - 371.

Wood, W. (1982). Retr ieval of at t i tude-relev ant n form ation from mem -

ory: Effects on sus ceptibi l i ty to persu asion and on intr in sic motiva-

t ion . Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology 42 7 9 8 - 8 1 0 .

Z im bardo , P . (1960). Invo lvem ent and c om mu nica t ion d i sc repancy as

d e t e r m i n a n t s o f o p i n i o n c o n f o rm i t y .

Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology

60 , 86-94 .

R e c e i v e d J u n e 1 0 , 1 9 8 9

R e v i s i o n r e c e i v e d J u l y 9 , 1 9 8 9

A c c e p t e d J u l y 1 4 , 1 9 8 9 •

Documents

Involvement and Persuasion_Tradition Versus Integration