A meta-analysis of 14 studies reporting the effect of argument strength on attitude under various mood states was conducted. The analyses included 39 estimates of effect size that were used to test the predictions of the processing deficit perspectives (i.e., motivational or ability deficits) and the hedonic contingency model. The results were most consistent with the hedonic contingency model, indicating that participants’ processing of messages seemedto be motivated toward attaining or maintaining positive moods.
Bless, H., Mackie, D. H., & Schwartz, N. (1992). Mood effects on attitude judgments: Independent effects of mood before and after message elaboration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 585-595.
2.
Bohner, G., Chaiken, S., & Hunyadi, P. (1994). The role of mood and message ambiguity in the interplay of heuristic and systematic processing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 207-221.
3.
Bohner, G., Crow, K., Erb, H., & Schwartz, N. (1992). Affect and persuasion: Mood effects on the processing of message content and context cues and on subsequent behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 511-530.
4.
Bohner, G., & Weinerth, T. (2001). Negative affect can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The affect interpretation hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1417-1428.
5.
Boster, F. J., & Mongeau, P. (1984). Fear-arousing persuasive messages. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 330-375). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
7.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.
9.
D’Alessio, D., & Allen, M. (2002). Selective exposure and dissonance after decisions. Psychological Reports, 91, 527-532.
10.
Dillard, J. P., & Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and the structure of affect. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 309-328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2001). Persuasion and the structure of affect: Dual systems and discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27, 38-68.
12.
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
13.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381-403). New York: Guilford.
15.
Hullett, C. R., & Levine, T. (2003). The overestimation of effect sizes from F values in meta-analysis: The cause and a solution. Communication Monographs, 70, 52-67.
16.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
18.
Keller, P. A., Lipkus, I. M., & Rimer, B. K. (2003). Affect, framing, and persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 54-64.
19.
Kuykendall, D., & Keeting, J. P. (1990). Mood and persuasion: Evidence for the differential influence of positive and negative states. Psychology and Marketing, 7, 1-9.
20.
Lazarus, R. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediationof positive affect in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 27-40.
22.
Marcus, G., & MacKuen, M. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87, 672-685.
23.
Mitchell, M. M. (2000). Able but not motivated? The relative effects of happy and sad mood on persuasive message processing. Communication Monographs, 67, 215-226.
24.
Mitchell, M. M., Brown, K., Morris-Villagran, M., & Villagran, P. D. (2001). The effect of anger, sadness, and happiness on persuasive message processing: A test of the negative state relief model. Communication Monographs, 68, 347-359.
25.
Mongeau, P. (1998). Another look at fear-arousing persuasive appeals. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 53-68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
26.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 329-344). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
28.
Raghunathan, R., & Trope, Y. (2002). Walking the tightrope between feeling good and being accurate: Mood as a resource in processing persuasive messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 510-525.
29.
Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional and hierarchical structure of affect. Psychological Science, 10, 297-303.
30.
Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 973-988.
31.
Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook (pp. 195-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across affective states: The hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034-1048.
33.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Klein, D. J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 25-43.
34.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Positive mood can increase or decrease message scrutiny: The hedonic contingency view of mood on message processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 5-15.
35.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591-615.
36.
Worth, L. T., & Mackie, D. M. (1987). Cognitive mediation of positive affectin persuasion. Social Cognition, 5, 76-94.
