The Sleeper Effect in Persuasion: A Meta-Analytic Review.

Abstract

A meta-analysis of the available judgment and memory data on the sleeper effect in persuasion is presented. According to this effect, when people receive a communication associated with a discounting cue, such as a noncredible source, they are less persuaded immediately after exposure than they are later in time. Findings from this meta-analysis indicate that recipients of discounting cues were more persuaded over time when the message arguments and the cue had a strong initial impact. In addition, the increase in persuasion was stronger when recipients of discounting cues had higher ability or motivation to think about the message and received the discounting cue after the message. These results are discussed in light of classic and contemporary models of attitudes and persuasion.Persuasive messages are often accompanied by information that induces suspicions of invalidity. For instance, recipients of communications about a political candidate may discount a message coming from a representative of the opponent party because they do not perceive the source of the message as credible (e.g., Lariscy & Tinkham, 1999). Because the source of the political message serves as a discounting cue and temporarily decreases the impact of the message, recipients may not be persuaded by the advocacy immediately after they receive the communication. Over time, however, recipients of an otherwise influential message may recall the message but not the noncredible source and thus become more persuaded by the message at that time than they were immediately following the communication. The term sleeper effect has been used to denote such a delayed increase in persuasion observed when the discounting cue (e.g., noncredible source) becomes unavailable or "dissociated" from the communication in the memory of the message recipients (Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949). Because the sleeper effect concerns initial message impact, as well as recall of the information presented in the communication, the phenomenon has implications for broad models of persuasion, including early learning approaches (e.g., Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953) as well as more recent conceptualizations, such as the heuristic-systematic model and the elaborationlikelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986;.The sleeper effect is counterintuitive because, generally, the impact of a persuasive communication is greater when one measures the effect closer to the presentation rather than farther away from the time of reception Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). As such, this phenomenon has stimulated a large amount of research about the possibility of increased persuasion over time, as well as the potential decrease and lack of longitudinal change in persuasion (for reviews, see Cook, Gruder, Hennigan, & Flay, 1979;Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Moreover, if one can understand the conditions that elicit increases, decreases, and stability in persuasion, one should be able to explain the Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.Correspondence concerning this art...

Redressing the Sleeper Effect: Evidence for the Favorable Persuasive Impact of Discounting Information Over Time in a Contemporary Advertising Context

“…Yet, research showed that the discounting cue was not forgotten (Hovland and Weiss 1951). This result prompted the proposal of the dissociation hypothesis, in which the message and discounting cue may be recalled during immediate post-testing, but are not spontaneously associated after a delay (Kumkale and Albarracín 2004;Pratkanis et al 1988). An increase in the favorableness of attitudes in groups receiving the discounting cue without necessarily forgetting the discounting cue suggests an effect at work beyond forgetting.…”

“…A series of negative results in experiments by Gillig and Greenwald in 1974 led them to conclude the sleeper effect did not exist. There is also little agreement as to how the discounting should be defined, or how different types of discounting cues effect the encoding or processing of the message content (Gruder et al 1978;Kumkale and Albarracín 2004;Mazursky and Schul 1988). For example, discounting cues have been operationalized as low credibility sources, counter-attitudinal messages, disclaimers, and negative product attributes (e.g., a case of champagne glasses with a dented box (Ein-Gar et al 2012) and defensive ads (Lariscey and Tinkham 1999).…”

“…If there is no increase in persuasion compared to the no message group, then maybe attitudes are decaying to baseline attitudes rather than an actual change in attitudes. The non-persisting boomerang effect is when there is an initial attitude change opposite to that promoted, and then increased persuasion over time towards the baseline (Kumkale and Albarracín 2004;Pratkanis et al 1988). …”

“…To explain the sleeper effect, it is hypothesized that a negative cue (e.g., a disclaimer, counterattitudinal message, negative review, low credibility source, or negative product attribute) discounting a persuasive message inhibits the initial positive impact of the message. The discounting cue is separated in memory over time from the message, allowing the message to have a delayed positive impact on attitudes (Kumkale and Albarracín 2004). In an early example, Hovland and Weiss (1951) found participants more positive toward persuasive messages (e.g., advocating selling anti-histamine drugs without a prescription) over time when advocated for by a low credibility source (a mass circulation monthly pictorial magazine), and less positive toward persuasive messages over time when advocated for by a high credibility source (New England Journal of Biology and Medicine).…”

Role models' influence on smoking reduction

“…Participants may have viewed the negative role models as less credible sources of information as they were portrayed unfavorably in comparison to the positive role models. Consistent with this, a meta-analysis found that participants became more persuaded by a message from a less credible source over time if they were motivated to think about the arguments (Kumkale & Albarracin, 2004). Perhaps participants in the current study who were presented with a negative role model initially viewed his/her credibility as suspect, but ruminated over the benefits of smoking cessation over time, thus becoming more susceptible to the sleeper effect leading to higher willingness to reduce smoking at time 2 than at time 1.…”