Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of supporting information on attitudes

Evidence-based training of frontline health workers for door-to-door health promotion: A pilot randomized controlled cluster trial with lady health workers in Sindh Province, Pakistan

“…Our study confirms that people engage more with health information when they perceive it to be personally relevant [37,38] and they are involved with the issues [39,40]. It also shows that health service users and providers are more likely to act upon this information if they are involved in the production, interpretation and discussion of the evidence.…”

Explaining Processes of Institutional Opinion Leadership

“…For example, if a high-credibility 2 It is easy to see how the dual process models could be interpreted as suggesting a trade-off between one form of influence and the other. The ELM suggests that either message content or peripheral cues have the primary impact on persuasion (Stiff 1986, Stiff andBoster 1987;cf. Petty et al 1987).…”

Messages as replications: Toward a message‐centered design strategy

“…For instance. Stiff (1986) concluded that the effect of evidence on persuasive effectiveness varies as a function of how involving the message topic is (for other examples, see Buller, 1986;Dillard, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1984;Jackson & Allen, 1987;D. O'Keefe 1987).…”

“…Finally, it may be worth remembering that meta-analytic reviews of the persuasion literature consistently find that, even after removing the variability attributable to sampling error and artifact, there still remains enough study-to-study variability to justify the search for moderators (see, e.g., Boster & Mongeau, 1984;Dillard et al, 1984;Jackson & Allen, 1987;Stiff, 1986). Our claim is not that this positively demonstrates the existence of variability in treatment effects across messages (it doesn't), but only that the existence of such residual study-to-study variability is consistent with the existence of nonuniform treatment effects across messages.…”