Diane M Mackie - US grants

The experiments in this proposal explore the impact of shared category membership (SCM) between the target and the source of a persuasive communication on the cognitive processes underlying persuasion. The main objective of the proposed experiments is an understanding of the impact of cognitive and motivational consequences of the recognition of SCM on choice and use of systematic or heuristic processing strategies, and on attitude change. The research methodology complements conventional measurements of attitude change with direct assessments of processing, distinguishing processing extent from processing goals. The experiments are concerned with isolating the factors and processes that contribute to recognition of SCM being a particularly effective producer of privately-accepted attitude change, an endeavor with practical importance in producing more effective compliance with medical and preventative health regimens. Experiments 1, 2, and 3 determine the attitudinal impact of message position versus message content when systematic compared with heuristic processing is used. Experiment 4 compares the relative persuasive impact of categorization or balance effects. Experiment 5 evaluates reinstatement of the category structure as an alternative to message elaboration in producing longterm change when heuristic processing has occurred. Experiments 6 and 7 are concerned with motivations for accurate reality testing versus consensus-seeking generated by messages from same-category sources. Experiments 8 and 9 test the hypotheses that recognition of SCM instigates spontaneous and online processing of attitude-relevant information. Experiments 10 and 11 assess the impact of the expectancy violation that occurs when counterattitudinal messages are received from same-category sources. Experiment 12 explores the consequences of the activation of category features associated with group membership on the processing of matching content in persuasive communications.

ABSTRACT This research will assess the impact of the motivational and cognitive consequences of affect on the processes underlying effective persuasion. From a processing perspective, persuasion can be modelled as an information processing sequence that culminates in an attitude judgment. That judgment is determined by subprocesses that encode, elaborate on, and integrate some subset of the attitude-relevant information available. From the processing approach, affective states have cognitive and motivational consequences that influence the extent and valence of encoding, elaboration; and integration, and thus of persuasion. Past research in this domain is extended in three directions: (a) the impact of affective states on reception and integration processes as well as on elaboration is investigated, (b) specific tests of the role of cognitive and motivational variables as mediators of the relationship between affective states, persuasion subprocesses, and persuasion are performed and (c) the processing perspective is extended to the investigation of the impact of negative (sad) affect. The first set of proposed experiments assesses the impact of affect on the nature and extent of reception, and its concomitant effect on attitude change. Experiments in Set 2 examine the motivational and cognitive mechanisms through which affect influences elaboration and thus persuasion. The experiments in Set 3 begin to explore the impact of affective states on integration processes in attitudinal judgments. This research will add to our understanding of the impact of affect on persuasion.

Hierarchical persuasive messages advocate two strategies for coping with a stated problem, the primary recommendation touted as the best strategy and a secondary recommendation advocated as a contingency ("Don't have sex -- but if you do, use a condom"). Despite their increasing popularity in public health campaigns, little is known of the actual persuasive or behavioral impact of hierarchical messages. The specific aims of the proposed experiments are to assess the shortterm and longterm processing, persuasive, judgmental, and behavioral intention consequences of hierarchical compared to simple (containing only one recommendation) persuasive messages. The impact of receiving hierarchical and simple messages will be assessed as regards the general issue (for example, preventing sun-induced skin cancer), as well as the primary and secondary recommendations made, with particular concern for whether heirarchical messages strengthen or weaken the persuasive effetciveness of the primary (most effective) recommendation. The spiraling cost of health care in this country is an issue of both social and economic concern. One simple fact is widely agreed upon: preventive behavioral change (changes that people make to increase the healthiness of their lifestyles) probably constitutes the most effective cost-cutting measure available. Behavioral scientists contribute to increases in preventive care by evaluating the effectiveness of health-related persuasive techniques designed to improve the general population's mental and physical health. This program of research evaluates the effectiveness of hierarchical persuasive messages, which advocate two strategies for coping with a stated problem, the primary recommendation (touted as the best strategy) and a secondary recommendation (advocated as a contingency if the best strategy can't be achieved. For example, the hierarchical message "The best way to prevent skin cancer is to avoid exposing your skin to the sun. If you must go out in the s un, use sunblock" offers two solutions to avoidng skin cancer. Despite their increasing popularity in public health campaigns, little is known of the actual persuasive or behavioral effectiveness of hierarchical messages. The specific aims of the proposed experiments are to assess the shortterm and longterm persuasive impact of hierarchical messages on health-related attitudes and behavior, with particular concern for whether heirarchical messages strengthen or weaken the persuasive effectiveness of the primary (most effective) recommendation and thus unwittingly undermine public health.

People who are in positive moods deal with information less critically and in less depth than do those who are not in a positive mood. For this reason, happy people can sometimes be more easily persuaded by weak and specious arguments. Although the finding itself is well established, the explanation for it is not. Another well-established finding is that the recognition of an object, event, or situation as familiar triggers both a positive mood and non-analytic thinking. Feeling positive is a cue to familiarity. Putting these two sets of findings together, it is suggested that positive mood triggers non-analytic thinking because being happy usually signals familiarity, and when something is familiar, it can be dealt with superficially.

The primary objective of this research is to empirically establish that positive mood triggers non-analytic thinking because positive mood usually signals familiarity, which in turn triggers non-analytic thinking. In this view, people often mistake a mild positive mood induced by all kinds of small environmental events (such as receiving a compliment, being given a small unexpected gift, watching a funny movie) for the positive mood that accompanies the recognition of familiarity. These experiments are designed to show a) that this confusion can take place, b) the conditions under which it does and does not take place, and c) that this confusion is responsible for the typically found association between feeling good and non-analytic processing. Given that positive moods can be triggered quite easily either incidentally (as when people watch a television comedy before listening to a Presidential address) or quite deliberately (as when an advertising agency invokes a humorous context in which to present a product with few valuable attributes), this research has both theoretical and practical implications for understanding when and how people can be more vulnerable, or more resistant to, persuasion.

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The research in this application tests an intergroup emotions theory (JET) approach to understanding prejudice and discrimination against out-groups, and in particular why negative reactions to out-groups are differentiated by situation, context, and occasion. According to JET, social identification with a group triggers intergroup appraisals: interpretations of situations or events according to whether they help or hurt relevant membership groups, rather than the individual self. When appraisals occur at this group level, intergroup emotions are experienced. Such emotions are experienced on behalf of the in-group, and the in-group and out-group become the targets of emotion. Specific intergroup emotions lead to differentiated action tendencies and thus behavior, and also to changes in mental representations. Such differentiated outcomes occur because of and are mediated by specific intergroup emotions that have been triggered by particular appraisals of situations or events related to social identity. Four research projects involving 19 studies focus on key tests of the IET model. Project 1 focuses on the initial process of social identification and on the nature of intergroup emotions. Project 2 focuses on intergroup appraisals and emotions, and particularly the way in which the unique dynamics of intergroup contexts direct such appraisals and emotions. Project 3 is concerned with the consequences of intergroup emotions. Key experiments in this project assess whether intergroup emotions translate into distinct action tendencies and actual behavior, as well as changing the content of mental representations. Project 4 addresses the implications of lET for interventions that undermine or eliminate the negative reactions toward out-groups caused by intergroup emotions. Given the toll that stigmatization and intergroup violence takes on the mental health of individuals and societies, the research is socially relevant as well as theoretically important.

Prejudice and discrimination by members of one group against members of another group is ubiquitous. This collaborative research project aims to better understand the conditions under which emotions felt toward other groups can exacerbate or reduce prejudice and discrimination. Research has already shown that antipathy and intolerance between groups is often driven by specific emotions (such as anger and resentment, fear and anxiety, sympathy, or guilt) that are aroused when people encounter members of other groups. The two sets of studies in this proposal focus on two important antecedents of specific emotions directed at other groups. In the first set of studies changes in people's perceived group membership is examined. The impact of these changes in categorization on emotions is assessed as well as the potential effects of an individual's emotional state on the categorization process itself. The second set of studies examines personal contact with an individual member of another group as a way of understanding the specific emotions that contribute to a positive outcome, and how these emotions translate into overt behavior in encounters between groups. Taken together, findings from this research will show how preconditions influence emotions which then translate into prejudice and behavior, and how this sequence might be altered or short-circuited. By showing when and how emotions toward other groups can exacerbate or reduce prejudice and discrimination, these research results may illuminate ways of reducing these important social problems.