Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change.

Hovland, Carl I.; Harvey, O. J.; Sherif, Muzafer

doi:10.1037/h0048480

Cited by 568 publications

(316 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

286

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Where discussants differ, either compromise or conflict can result (Hovland, Harvey, and Sherif 1957). In the case of disagreement, a simple mechanism of dissonance reduction (Festinger 1957;Hedstrm 1996) shapes whether or not the two parties will move toward a compromise, or exacerbate their differences.…”

Section: Mechanisms Of Social Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of Political Polarization

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article accounts for two puzzling paradoxes. The first paradox is the simultaneous absence and presence of attitude polarization, the fact that global attitude polarization is relatively rare, even though pundits describe it as common. The second paradox is the simultaneous presence and absence of social polarization, the fact that while individuals experienced attitude homogeneity in their interpersonal networks, their networks are characterized by attitude heterogeneity. These paradoxes give rise to numerous scholarly arguments. By deploying a formal model of interpersonal influence over attitudes in a context where individuals hold simultaneous positions on multiple issues we show why these arguments are not mutually exclusive and how they meaningfully refer to the same social setting. It follows that the results from this model provide a single parsimonious account for both paradoxes. The framework we develop may be generalized to a wider array of problems, including classic problems in collective action.

show abstract

Section: Mechanisms Of Social Influencementioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamics of Political Polarization

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 This decision meant that the early work of the Sherifs and their colleagues was not included (e.g,, Hovland et al, 1957;C. W. Sherifet al, 1965;M.…”

Section: Design Of Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sherif, C. W. Sherif, and their colleagues developed the implications of involvement (which they often called "ego involvement") for persuasion by giving it a major role in their social judgment-involvement approach, a theory of attitude change developed in the 1950s and early 1960s (Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957;C. W. Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965;M.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.

Johnson

Eagly

1989

Psychological Bulletin

824

671

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defines involvement as a motivational state induced by an association between an activated attitude and the self-concept. Integration of the available research suggests that the effects of involvement on attitude change depended on the aspect of message recipients' self-concept that was activated to create involvement: (a) their enduring values (value-relevant involvement), (b) their ability to attain desirable outcomes (outcome-relevant involvement), or (c) the impression they make on others (impression-relevant involvement). Findings showed that (a) with value-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were less persuaded than low-involvement subjects; (b) with outcome-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were more persuaded than low-involvement subjects by strong arguments and (somewhat inconsistently) less persuaded by weak arguments; and (c) with impression-relevant involvement, high-involvement subjects were slightly less persuaded than lowinvolvement subjects.To understand the conditions under which people are persuaded by others, researchers have often invoked the concept of involvement. Although this construct was popular prior to M. Sherif and Cantril's (1947) work (see A. G. Greenwald's, 1982, review), their proposal that highly involving attitudes be regarded as components of the self-concept or ego was seminal to theory about involvement's impact on attitude change. According to M. Sherif and Cantril (1947), such attitudes "have the characteristic of belonging to me, as being part of me, as psychologically experienced" (p. 93).M. Sherif, C. W. Sherif, and their colleagues developed the implications of involvement (which they often called "ego involvement") for persuasion by giving it a major role in their social judgment-involvement approach, a theory of attitude change developed in the 1950s and early 1960s (Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957;C. W. Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965;M. Sherif & Hovland, 1961). During this same period, Zimbardo (1960) introduced the concept of response involvement in order to predict attitude change in a social influence setting. In more A preliminary report of this research was presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, May 1987.We thank

show abstract

“…If the influence goes in the opposite direction, one may term it a "contrast effect," It should be noted that this terminology is merely descriptive and does not imply any assumptions aboutpossibleunderlying processes (cf. Hovland, Harvey, & Sherif, 1957).…”

Section: "Order Effects" As Question Effects: Methodsological Considermentioning

confidence: 99%

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Schwarz¹,

Sudman²

1992

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone.Camera-ready copy supplied by the authors. Printed and bound by Braun-Brumfield, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. Bibb Latane and Deborah Richardson hosted the conference at the Nags Head Conference Center in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. Their hospitality, the joys of southern cooking, and the outer banks of North Carolina greatly contributed to an enjoyable and productive meeting. Special thanks are due to Mary A. Spaeth, who edited all contributions to this volume and turned a pile of manuscripts into a readable book. Finally, we thank all conference participants for lively and controversial discussions from breakfast to midnight and for the fine chapters that they contributed.

show abstract

Assimilation and contrast effects in reactions to communication and attitude change.

Cited by 568 publications

References 13 publications

Dynamics of Political Polarization

Dynamics of Political Polarization

Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About