Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion.

Axsom, Danny; Yates, Suzanne; Chaiken, Shelly

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.30

Cited by 246 publications

(206 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

191

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We further argue that in some cases, informational influence may take the form of mindlessly using the responses of others as heuristic cues to guide behavior (Cialdini, 1993). Consistent with this idea, past studies have indicated that people may apply the heuristic that ''consensus implies correctness'' and adopt the position of others when they perceive consensus between these other people towards that position (Axsom et al, 1987;Chaiken et al, 1996;Cialdini, 1993). From this reasoning, we therefore hypothesized that happy mood should engender greater use of the ''consensus implies correctness'' heuristic than negative mood and thus should produce stronger conformity effects than negative mood.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…Although research on the systematic-heuristic model typically focuses on persuasion, the model has also been successfully applied to other domains such as person perception (Chaiken et al, 1989). Of relevance to our current interest in conformity, past studies have shown that people may apply the heuristic that ''consensus implies correctness'' in making sense of a situation (Axsom, Yates, & Chaiken, 1987). This suggests that in a conformity context, people may be more likely to infer that a certain position is correct to the extent that other people unanimously agree on that position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conformity: moods matter

Tong

Tan

Latheef

et al. 2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the hypotheses that positive mood enhances conformity and that negative mood reduces it. Participants were induced to feel positive, neutral, or negative moods and then answered, in private, six mathematical questions. They observed that wrong answers were unanimously given by five bogus participants for three of the questions. Conformity was measured by whether they indicated the erroneous answers given by these bogus participants in these three questions. The results were supportive of the hypothesis. The current results are consistent with past findings about mood differences in heuristic versus elaborative processing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Conformity: moods matter

Tong

Tan

Latheef

et al. 2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the strength of consensus decision making varies between individualists and collectivists, 113,114 this will also influence the decision about brand association based on selfcongruity and hence brand preference.…”

Section: Influence Of Consensus Decision On Self-conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising brand personality: A review and research propositions

Phau¹,

Lau²

2000

J Target Meas Anal Mark

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONA brand is perceived to possess a 'personality' that consumers use to 'self-express' or to experience the emotional benefits of the brand. This will differentiate the brand from competitors in the same product category. [1][2][3] Despite developments made in this respect, prior research has focused solely on the role of brand attributes and utilitarian functions in influencing consumer attitudes. 4 Little progress has been made in showing how brands can be used for the purpose of selfexpression. This is despite research which shows that self-expression can be an important driver for brand preference and choice. 5,6 Consequently, the main aim of this paper is to address the issues regarding brand personality as a Ian Phau is on the Marketing Faculty at the

show abstract

“…Given research on the judgmental impact of consensus information (e.g., Axsom, Yates, & Chaiken, 1987;Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991), we added a measure to assess consensus opinion beliefs. We expected that all participants may infer consensus opinion and subsequently base their attitudes at least in part on a "consensus opinions are correct" heuristic.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing.

Chen¹,

Shechter²,

Chaiken³

1996

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

274

197

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies examined the heuristic and systematic processing of accuracy-versus impression-motivated individuals expecting a discussion with a partner believed to hold either a favorable or unfavorable opinion on the discussion issue. Given the goal of having a pleasant interaction, impressionmotivated (versus accuracy-motivated) participants in both studies were particularly likely to express attitudes that were evaluatively consistent with the partner's opinion, reflecting their selective use of a "go along to get along" heuristic. Study 2 yielded stronger evidence for the distinct nature of heuristic and systematic processing in the service of accuracy versus impression goals. In this study, the evaluative implication of impression-motivated participants' low-effort application of a "go along to get along" heuristic biased their more effortful, systematic processing, leading to attitudes consistent with the partner's views. In contrast, given the goal of determining an accurate issue opinion, accuracy-motivated participants exhibited relatively evenhanded systematic processing, resulting in attitudes unbiased by the partner's opinion. The results underscore the utility of a dual-process approach to understanding motivated cognition.Intuition and experience suggest that various motives can influence the way in which people process information and the judgments that result. That is, the motivated perceiver's cognitive processes will be a direct reflection of the goals that they are intended to satisfy. Using the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980(Chaiken, , 1987Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) as a theoretical framework, the present research aims to elucidate the distinct ways in which accuracy versus impression motives are served by both heuristic and systematic processes. The Heuristic-Systematic ModelThe heuristic-systematic model proposes a dual-process framework in which people may process information in a relatively effortless heuristic mode and in a more cognitively demanding, systematic mode. Whereas heuristic processing is characterized by the application of simple decision rules (e.g.,

show abstract

Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion.

Cited by 246 publications

References 36 publications

Conformity: moods matter

Conformity: moods matter

Conceptualising brand personality: A review and research propositions

Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About