Using causal persuasive arguments to change beliefs and teach new information: The mediating role of explanation availability and evaluation bias in the acceptance of knowledge.

Abstract

In this article processes by which causal arguments effect change in established beliefs were explored. The hypothesis that explanation availability mediates belief change in response to causal arguments was tested in 2 experiments. Persuasive communications used causal evidence, noncausal (statistical) evidence, or both to argue that AIDS is not transmissible by casual contact. Results supported the authors' hypothesis. Causal arguments produced the greatest belief change, with the effect mediated by explanation availability. Causal arguments were also less subject to evaluation bias, consistent with a cognitive interpretation of the biased assimilation phenomenon (in which evidence in favor of one's position is evaluated more favorably than evidence in opposition). Experiment 2 replicated the basic effects with dependent measures (including a measure of behavioral commitment) obtained 3 weeks after presentation of the communications. These results suggest that a causal component strengthens the educational potential of persuasive arguments.

Persuasion by Causal Arguments: The Motivating Role of Perceived Causal Expertise

“…Initial research on causal arguments demonstrated a main effect: causal arguments can be more effective than non-causal arguments for changing beliefs (Slusher & Anderson, 1996). Together, recent research (Tobin & Weary, 2008) and the current findings demonstrate the existence of two sets of moderating variables: (1) personal levels of causal uncertainty and causal importance, and (2) the source's level of perceived causal and content-area expertise.…”

“…For the non-causal arguments, instead of explaining why the negative consequences would occur, we provided statistical information that suggested that the effects would occur (Slusher & Anderson, 1996;Tobin & Weary, 2008). For example, to support the idea that stress levels would increase, we stated that "studies have found that vacations longer than 5 to 7 days increased post-vacation stress among students by up to 16%."…”

“…These findings demonstrate that causal and content-area expertise can increase motivation to attend to causal arguments. Implications for the persuasion literature are discussed.The findings of recent research suggest that when trying to change people's attitudes and beliefs, it is sometimes more important to explain why particular outcomes would occur than it is to provide evidence that suggests the outcomes would, in fact, occur (Slusher & Anderson, 1996;Tobin & Weary, 2008). Arguments that explain the causal mechanism responsible for some effect are called causal arguments.…”

“…make the same claim, but then support it with covariation or statistical information (i.e., "at most of the country's casinos, low-income people make up about 78% of the crowd at the slot machines"). Slusher and Anderson (1996) argued that causal arguments should be more effective than non-causal arguments at changing people's social theories, or beliefs about how and why variables are related. They posited that the persistence of social theories depends upon the relative number of available causal explanations in support of a given theory compared to those opposing it.…”

Sexual Orientation Beliefs

“…Subsequent studies have investigated biased assimilation in domains such as AIDS prevention education (Slusher & Anderson, 1996), assessing the guilt of acused rape perpetrators (Weiner, Weiner, & Grisso, 1989), and the possibility of technological accidents (Plous, 1991). Miller, McHockey, Bane, and Dowd (1993) critiqued the original Lord et al (1979) study by demonstrating that the attitude polarization effect is limited to certain types of attitude assessment.…”