A n experimental study of the effects of a two-sided message suggests that it may reduce the cognitive effects of subsequent counter-propaganda but be inferior to a one-sided message in effects upon emotional responses. Both implicit and explicit twosided messages were used.the man who presents his message first has an opportunity to "immunize" his audience against subsequent arguments by an opponent. This phenomenon was demonstrated shortly after World War I1 when Lumsdaine and Janisl found that 61% of high school pupils exposed to an original two-sided message, i.e., one containing counter-arguments, still showed its effects after counter-propaganda, as compared with only 2% o f the pupils exposed to an original onesided message. Recent studies by Papageorgis andMcGuire2 have shown that such immunization generalizes to counter-arguments not specikally "previewed" in the original, two-sided message. They conclude that there is little necessity to guess what specific counter-arguments *The author is assodate professor and dlrector of the Research Program in Marketing Communication at the University of Notre Dame. The article is based upon his doctoral dissertation in communication research at Stanford University. lArthur A. Lumsdaine and Irving L. Janis, "Resistance to 'Counterpropaganda' Produced by One-sided and Two-sided 'Propaganda' P r m t ations," Public Opinion Quarterly, 11:311-18 (Fall 19S3). lDemetrius Papageorgis and William J. M o Guire, "The Generality of Immunity to Persuasion Produced by Pre-Exposure to Weakened Counterarguments," Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, undated. (Mimeographed.)will be used later, since any counterarguments will immunize.

No abstract

No abstract

Examines why the public are becoming increasingly concerned about marketing practices and corporate responsibility. States that present and future marketing executives in Norway have investigated these issues – but even so they were just as critical on issues where their personal experiences as consumers seemed to have been evoked. Reports that a self‐administered questionnaire was completed by members of three groups: a business executive group; a college students group; and a group of first and second‐year high school students. Gives the results and discusses them in detail. Concludes that the research gives reason for some hope that in the future more initiative may come from sources within the industry itself.

No abstract