Television commercials differing in levels of distraction were presented to subjects who varied in their degree of commitment to competing products. Results lend only limited support to the prediction that distraction would increase yielding among subjects committed to competing products. An alternative explanation of the process, based upon distraction interference with learning, is rejected.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BitherStewart W. “Comments on Venkatesan and Haaland's Test of the Festinger-Maccoby Divided Attention Hypothesis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (May 1969), 237–8.
2.
BitherStewart W. and WrightPeter L. “The Effect of Chronic Self-Esteem and Distraction on Persuasibility,” The Pennsylvania State University Working Papers in Marketing Research, No. 13, 1971.
3.
FestingerLeon and MaccobyNathan. “On Resistance to Persuasive Communications,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68 (November 1964), 359–66.
4.
GardnerDavid M. “The Effect of Divided Attention on Attitude Change Induced by a Persuasive Marketing Communication,” Proceedings. Fall Conference, American Marketing Association, 1966, 532–40.
5.
KieslerSara B. and MathogRobert B. “Distraction Hypothesis in Attitude Change: Effects of Effectiveness,” Psychological Reports, 23 (June 1968), 1123–33.
6.
McGuireWilliam J. “Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence,” in BorgattaE. F. and LambertW. W., eds., Handbook of Personality Theory and Research.Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968, 1130–87.
7.
OsterhouseRobert A. and BrockTimothy C. “Distraction Increases Yielding to Propaganda by Inhibiting Counter-arguing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15 (November 1970), 344–58.
8.
RuleBrendon G. and RehillDavid. “Distraction and Self-Esteem Effects on Attitude Change,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15 (November 1970), 359–65.
9.
RosenblattPaul C. “Persuasion as a Function of Varying Amounts of Distraction,” Psychonomic Science, 5 (April 1966), 85–6.
10.
VenkatesanM. and HaalandGordon A. “Divided Attention and Television Commercials: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (May 1968), 203–5.
11.
ZimbardoPhilip G., EbbensenE. B., and FrazerS. C. “Emotional Persuasion: Arousal State as a Distractor,” in ZimbardoPhilip and EbbensenE. B., eds., Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior.Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969, 37–8.
