The comparative effect of factual and ideological propaganda was investigated by means of a controlled experiment in which matched groups were exposed to films exemplifying these persuasive techniques. Results disclosed the greater influence of the ideological film, which was also the least liked. Further analysis provided empirical support for cognitive dissonance as an explanation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JackW. Brehm and CohenArthur R., Explorations in Cognitive Dissonance, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
2.
Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University 1954.
3.
CartwrightDorwin, “Some Principles of Mass Persuasion: Selected Findings of Research on the Sale of United States War Bonds,” Human Relations, 2 (1949), 253–67.
4.
CooperEunice and DinermanHelen, “Analysis of the Film ‘Don't Be a Sucker’: A Study in Communication,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 (1951), 263.
5.
FestingerLeon, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson and Company, 1957.
6.
HartmannGeorge W., “A Field Experiment on the Comparative Effectiveness of ‘Emotional’ and ‘Rational’ Political Leaflets in Determining Election Results,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 31 (1936), 99–114.
7.
HovlandCarl I., IrvingL. Janis and KelleyHarold H., Communication and Persuasion, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953, 110.
8.
HovlandCarl I., ArthurA. Lumsdaine and SheffieldFred D., Experiments on Mass Communication, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, Vol. 3, 1949, 201–27.
9.
HovlandCarl I., and MandellWallace, “An Experimental Comparison of Conclusion-Drawing by the Communicator and by the Audience,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology47 (1952), 581–8.
10.
HovlandCarl I., and WeissWalter, “The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 (1951), 35–50.
11.
JanisIrving L. and FeshbachSeymour, “Effects of Fear-Arousing Communications,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48 (1953), 78–92.
12.
ElihuKatz and LazarsfeldPaul F., Personal Influence, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955, 214.
13.
KlapperJoseph T., The Effects of Mass Communication, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960.
14.
KnowerFranklin H., “Experimental Studies of Changes in Attitudes: I. A Study of the Effect of Oral Argument on Changes of Attitude,” Journal of Social Psychology6 (1935), 315–57.
15.
LazarsfeldPaul F., et al., The People's Choice, New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1944, 152.
16.
RobertK. Merton and LazarsfeldPaul F., “Chapter 14, Studies in Radio and Film Propaganda,” in MertonRobert K., Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed., Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957, 524–6.
17.
RosenbergMilton J., HovlandCarl I., et al., Attitude Organization and Change, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1960.
18.
ThistlewaiteDonald L., deHaanHenry and KamenetzkyJoseph, “The Effects of ‘Directive’ and ‘Non-directive’ Communication Procedures on Attitudes,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (1955), 107–13.
