Involvement Effects on Persuasion Brandon Kopp First Year Talk – June 9th, 2005

Johnson & Eagly (1989): 2 Types of Involvement S W LowHigh Attitude LowHigh S W Attitude Outcome RelevanceValue Relevance 20 Studies Senior Comprehensive Exams Consumer Products 15 Studies Use of Contraceptives Draft Deferments for Vietnam

Johnson and Eagly (1989) Outcome Relevant Involvement Attitudes that are linked to one’s currently important goals or outcomes Attitudes that are linked to one’s currently important goals or outcomes High outcome-relevant involvement is associated with increased message processing High outcome-relevant involvement is associated with increased message processing Facilitates persuasion with strong arguments Facilitates persuasion with strong arguments Inhibits persuasion with weak arguments Inhibits persuasion with weak arguments S W LowHigh Attitude

Johnson and Eagly (1989) Value Relevant Involvement “…the psychological state that is created by the activation of attitudes that are linked to important values.“ “…the psychological state that is created by the activation of attitudes that are linked to important values.“ High value-relevant involvement is associated with inhibition of persuasion High value-relevant involvement is associated with inhibition of persuasion However, “the tendency for involvement to inhibit persuasion was weakened by strong arguments” However, “the tendency for involvement to inhibit persuasion was weakened by strong arguments” S W Low High Attitude

Petty and Cacioppo (1990): Involvement by Any Name… S W LowHigh Attitude Low High S W Attitude Self-relevance increases processing in an objective manner. Outcome Relevance Value Relevance Group Relevance Self-relevance increases processing but various factors confounded with the value-relevance studies leads to negatively bias processing. Already Considered Attitude Higher Attitude Consistent Knowledge

Petty and Cacioppo (1990): Criticisms of Johnson and Eagly (1989) Often researchers did not manipulate value relevance, they selected people who were or were not “highly involved” in certain issues. Often researchers did not manipulate value relevance, they selected people who were or were not “highly involved” in certain issues.

Petty & Cacioppo (1990) Possible Confounds with Value-Relevance Studies Possible Confounds with Value-Relevance Studies People have already considered their position on these issues People have already considered their position on these issues Involvement is associated with more extreme attitudes Involvement is associated with more extreme attitudes Involvement is associated with increased attitude consistent knowledge Involvement is associated with increased attitude consistent knowledge An increase in attitude consistent knowledge may increase a person’s certainty in their attitude An increase in attitude consistent knowledge may increase a person’s certainty in their attitude The more involving an issue the more likely it is that a person has publicly committed to their position The more involving an issue the more likely it is that a person has publicly committed to their position

Petty & Cacioppo (1990) Possible Confounds with Value-Relevance Studies Possible Confounds with Value-Relevance Studies People have already considered their position on these issues People have already considered their position on these issues Involvement is associated with more extreme attitudes Involvement is associated with more extreme attitudes Involvement is associated with increased attitude consistent knowledge Involvement is associated with increased attitude consistent knowledge An increase in attitude consistent knowledge may increase a person’s certainty in their attitude An increase in attitude consistent knowledge may increase a person’s certainty in their attitude The more involving an issue the more likely it is that a person has publicly committed to their position The more involving an issue the more likely it is that a person has publicly committed to their position

Purpose of This Study Address Petty and Cacioppo’s (1990) criticisms of Johnson and Eagly’s (1989) meta-analysis. Address Petty and Cacioppo’s (1990) criticisms of Johnson and Eagly’s (1989) meta-analysis. Use a novel topic Use a novel topic Manipulate value/outcome-relevance Manipulate value/outcome-relevance Compare the two models of involvement effects on persuasion. Compare the two models of involvement effects on persuasion.

Outcome-Relevant Importance/Involvement Important Goals/Outcomes Increased Message Acceptance with Strong, but Increased Rejection with Weak Arguments Important Values Value-Relevant Importance/Involvement Some Message Rejection with Strong, but More Rejection with Weak Arguments Important Values Important People/Groups Important Objects Important Goals/Outcomes Personal Importance/ Involvement with Attitude Issue Enhanced Message Elaboration Johnson & Eagly Petty & Cacioppo Both Models Adapted from Petty, Cacioppo, and Haugtvedt (1992)

Method - Design 3 (Type of Involvement: Value or Outcome or No) X 2 (Argument Strength: Strong or Weak)

Cover Story Evaluating the effectiveness of news filtering software Evaluating the effectiveness of news filtering software Personality Questionnaires  Personality Profile  Filters Out Stories That Are of Little Interest to Readers Personality Questionnaires  Personality Profile  Filters Out Stories That Are of Little Interest to Readers

“Personality Questionnaire” & Feedback Need for Cognition Scale Need for Cognition Scale Need to Evaluate Scale Need to Evaluate Scale Self-Monitoring Scale Self-Monitoring Scale Value/Outcome Ranking Questionnaire Value/Outcome Ranking Questionnaire Values HelpfulLovingness Responsibility Family Security HonestyImaginative HappinessForgiveness CleanFreedom Logical National Security Outcomes Getting Good Grades Employment Fame Establishing Friendships Acquiring Wealth Love Serving Others Getting Married Graduating Getting a Good Education Meeting New People Being Fit

Please Wait …………………………………………………………………………. Thank you for completing this portion of the personality questionnaire. Please wait while the computer calculates your score.

The score you received on this scale was used to make determinations about your personality. We would now like you to review your score and the computer generated statement describing your personality.

Adaptability Scale Your Score: 39 What does your score say about you?: While you have some information processing weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. RigidFlexible Continue

Manipulation Using the personality profile you have created the computer has randomly selected an article from our database. Based on your earlier responses the news story selected will be highly relevant to your values/desired outcomes. That is, the computer predicts that the story will connect with the values/desired outcomes that are most important to you. Using the personality profile you have created the computer has randomly selected an article from our database. Based on your earlier responses the news story selected will be highly relevant to your values/desired outcomes. That is, the computer predicts that the story will connect with the values/desired outcomes that are most important to you. Using the personality profile you have created the computer has randomly selected an article from our database. Based on your earlier responses the news story selected will not be applicable to you in any way. This is because you are serving in a “control group” for this study, so the story will not connect to your personal information. Using the personality profile you have created the computer has randomly selected an article from our database. Based on your earlier responses the news story selected will not be applicable to you in any way. This is because you are serving in a “control group” for this study, so the story will not connect to your personal information.

Attitude Object University Service Programs University Service Programs Additional general education requirement Additional general education requirement 9 hours of service benefiting the university per week for one quarter/semester. 9 hours of service benefiting the university per week for one quarter/semester. Work study jobs Work study jobs

Manipulation Check Value Relevance (3) Value Relevance (3) Outcome Relevance (3) Outcome Relevance (3) Personal Relevance (2) Personal Relevance (2) Issue Importance (2) Issue Importance (2)  Relate to Values Threatens Values Threatens Values Promotes Values Promotes Values  Relate to Outcomes Threatens Outcomes Threatens Outcomes Promotes Outcomes Promotes Outcomes  How Likely What Is The Chance What Is The Chance  How Important Personally Care Personally Care

Argument Presentation Brief article Brief article Including five strong or weak arguments Including five strong or weak arguments Strong Arguments Strong Arguments The monetary savings for the university can be directed toward lowering tuition costs. The monetary savings for the university can be directed toward lowering tuition costs. Many employers look for people with skills in teamwork and communication; skills which are learned while participating in a university service program. Many employers look for people with skills in teamwork and communication; skills which are learned while participating in a university service program. Weak Arguments Weak Arguments The monetary savings for the university can be directed toward faculty and staff pay raises. The monetary savings for the university can be directed toward faculty and staff pay raises. With students performing university services, there will be a great deal more money with which to plant exotic plants on campus. With students performing university services, there will be a great deal more money with which to plant exotic plants on campus.

Dependent Measures Attitude Measures (3) Attitude Measures (3) Dichotomous Value vs. Outcome Scale Dichotomous Value vs. Outcome Scale Relates more to values or outcomes Relates more to values or outcomes Value Relevance (3) Value Relevance (3) Outcome Relevance (3) Outcome Relevance (3) Personal Relevance (2) Personal Relevance (2) Issue Importance (2) Issue Importance (2) Thought Listing/Rating Thought Listing/Rating  Good or Bad Idea Like or Dislike Like or Dislike Favor or Oppose Favor or Oppose

Value Relevance F(2,59)=2.30, p = Outcome Relevance Personal RelevanceIssue Importance F(2,59)=2.30, p > 0.10 Manipulation Checks F(2,59)=1.061, p > 0.10F(2,59)=0.15, p > 0.10

Manipulation Checks – Value Relevance F(2,59)=2.30, p = 0.094

Manipulation Checks – Outcome Relevance F(2,59)=2.30, p > 0.10

Manipulation Checks – Personal Relevance F(2,59)=1.061, p > 0.10

Manipulation Check – Issue Importance F(2,59)=0.15, p > 0.10

Results – 3 (Relevance) X 2 (Argument Quality). Main effect for AQ. F(1,56) = 9.02, p < 0.005

Explanation – Free Recall Question Why did the computer select for you the story that it did? Why did the computer select for you the story that it did? 23% 77%

Explanation – Recognition Question What reason did the computer give for selecting the news article that it did? That is, what did the computer tell you the news article would relate to? What reason did the computer give for selecting the news article that it did? That is, what did the computer tell you the news article would relate to? Important Hobbies Important Values Need for Thought Important People In Your Life Your College Desired Outcomes Your Need to Be Accepted Article Will Not Relate to Your Information Don’t Remember

Explanation – Recognition Question (cont.) 50% F(2,29) = 5.92, p < 0.01

Discussion Strong arguments were more persuasive than weak arguments Strong arguments were more persuasive than weak arguments Relevance manipulation did not work Relevance manipulation did not work It appears participants aren’t paying attention It appears participants aren’t paying attention 50% of participants couldn’t recognize the manipulation 10 minutes after they received it 50% of participants couldn’t recognize the manipulation 10 minutes after they received it

Future Directions Add consistent/inconsistent conditions to show positively/negatively biased processing Add consistent/inconsistent conditions to show positively/negatively biased processing Try different attitude objects Try different attitude objects Senior Comprehensive Exams? Senior Comprehensive Exams? Consumer products? Consumer products?

Special Thanks Rich Petty Rich Petty Jamie Barden Jamie Barden Ken DeMarree Ken DeMarree Mike McCaslin Mike McCaslin Derek Rucker Derek Rucker Michelle See Michelle See Joe Roberts Joe Roberts Tiffany Hardy Tiffany Hardy

Thank You Questions?Comments?

Reading Rainbow For more information on involvement and persuasion processes consult your local library For more information on involvement and persuasion processes consult your local library Johnson, B.T. & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, Johnson, B.T. & Eagly, A.H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Johnson, B.T. & Eagly, A.H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, Johnson, B.T. & Eagly, A.H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107,