People in their everyday lives encounter claims about various health, political, and economic issues. These claims are often supported by evidence based on didactic or exemplar information. In the research reported here, we use a noninvasive brain stimulation technique (transcranial Direct Current Stimulation [tDCS]) to examine the cognitive mechanisms underlying people’s ability to support or refute claims conveyed by messages that contain didactic or exemplar information. Our results are consistent with the notion that the evaluation of didactic-based evidence engages more deliberative cognitive processes than the evaluation of exemplar information. Our study highlights the utility of tDCS in the study of message processing by demonstrating how it can be used to test the assumptions of message-processing theories.
AndersonJ. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT* theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 105, 165-180. doi:10.2307/1423026
2.
AntalA.NitscheM. A.KincsesT. Z.KruseW.HoffmannK.PaulusW. (2004). Facilitation of visuo-motor learning by transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor and extrastriate visual areas in humans. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 2888-2892. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03367.x
3.
ArendtF. (2010). Cultivation effects of a newspaper on reality estimates and explicit and implicit attitudes. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 22, 147-159. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000020
4.
BakerS. C.RogersR. D.OwenA. M.FrithC. D.DolanR. J.FrackowiakR. S. J.RobbinsT. W. (1996). Neural systems engaged by planning: A PET study of the Tower of London task. Neuropsychologia, 34, 515-526. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(95)00133-6
5.
BarbeyA. K.ColomR.GrafmanJ. (2013). Architecture of cognitive flexibility revealed by lesion mapping. NeuroImage, 82, 547-554. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.087
6.
BarbeyA. K.KoenigM.GrafmanJ. (2013). Dorsolateral prefrontal contributions to human working memory. Cortex, 49, 1195-1205. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.05.022
7.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
8.
BeenG.NgoT. T.MillerS. M.FitzgeraldP. B. (2007). The use of tDCS and CVS as methods of non-invasive brain stimulation. Brain Research Reviews, 56, 346-361. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.08.001
9.
BiabaniM.AminitehraniM.ZoghiM.FarrellM.EganG.JaberzadehS. (2018). The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on short-interval intracortical inhibition and intracortical facilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 29, 99-114. doi:10.1515/revneuro-2017-0023.
10.
BoomerD. S. (1965). Hesitation and grammatical encoding. Language and Speech, 8, 148-158. doi:10.1177/002383096500800302
11.
BortfeldH.LeonS. D.BloomJ. E.SchoberM. F.BrennanS. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44, 123-147. doi:10.1177/00238309010440020101
12.
BosterF. J.CameronK. A.CampoS.LiuW.LillieJ. K.BakerE. M.YunK. (2000). The persuasive effects of statistical evidence in the presence of exemplars. Communication Studies, 51, 296-306. doi:10.1080/10510970009388525
BravermanJ. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication Research, 35, 666-694. doi:10.1177/0093650208321785
15.
BrosiusH.BatheltA. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78. doi:10.1177/009365094021001004
16.
BusselleR. W.ShrumL. J. (2003). Media exposure and exemplar accessibility. Media Psychology, 5, 255-282. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0503_02
17.
ChrysikouE. G.HamiltonR. H.CoslettH. B.DattaA.BiksonM.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2013). Noninvasive transcranial direct current stimulation over the left prefrontal cortex facilitates cognitive flexibility in tool use. Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 81-89. doi:10.1080/17588928.2013.768221
18.
DissanayakaT.ZoghiM.FarrellM.EganG. F.JaberzadehS. (2017). Does transcranial electrical stimulation enhance corticospinal excitability of the motor cortex in healthy individuals? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Neuroscience, 46, 1968-1990. doi:10.1111/ejn.13640
19.
DixonG. N.McKeeverB. W.HoltonA. E.ClarkeC.EoscoG. (2015). The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication, 65, 639-659. doi:10.1111/jcom.12159
20.
DuncanJ.OwenA. M. (2000). Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends in Neurosciences, 23, 475-483. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01633-7
21.
FestingerL.MaccobyN. (1964). On resistance to persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 359-366. doi:10.1037/h0049073
22.
FinlaysonI. R.CorleyM. (2012). Disfluency in dialogue: An intentional signal from the speaker?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 921-928. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0279-x
23.
GillJ.Shah-BasakP. P.HamiltonR. (2015). It’s the thought that counts: Examining the task-dependent effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on executive function. Brain Stimulation, 8, 253-259. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2014.10.018
24.
HampsteadB. M.BrownG. S.HartleyJ. F. (2014). Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates activation and effective connectivity during spatial navigation. Brain Stimulation, 7, 314-324. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2013.12.006
25.
HealyA. F.FendrichD. W.ProctorJ. D. (1990). Acquisition and retention of a letter-detection skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 270-281. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.16.2.270
26.
HiscockR.BauldL.AmosA.FidlerJ. A.MunafòM. (2012). Socioeconomic status and smoking: A review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1248, 107-123. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06202.x
27.
HorvathJ. C.ForteJ. D.CarterO. (2015). Quantitative review finds no evidence of cognitive effects in healthy populations from single-session transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). Brain Stimulation, 8, 535-550. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2015.01.400
28.
Jacobson et al. 2012: JacobsonL.KoslowskyM.LavidorM. (2012). tDCS polarity effects in motor and cognitive domains: A meta-analytical review. Experimental Brain Research, 216(1), 1-10. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2891-9 C 3
29.
KahnemanD.FrederickS. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In HolyoakK.MorrisonB. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267-293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
KaruzaE. A.BalewskiZ. Z.HamiltonR. H.MedagliaJ. D.TardiffN.Thompson-SchillS. L. (2016). Mapping the parameter space of tDCS and cognitive control via manipulation of current polarity and intensity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, Article 665. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2016.00665
31.
KimH. S.BigmanC. A.LeaderA. E.LermanC.CappellaJ. N. (2012). Narrative health communication and behavior change: The influence of exemplars in the news on intention to quit smoking. Journal of Communication, 62, 473-492. doi10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01644.x
32.
KreuterM. W.GreenM. C.CappellaJ. N.SlaterM. D.WiseM. E.StoreyD.WoolleyS. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 221-235. doi:10.1007/bf02879904
33.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
34.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package) (Version 2.0-29) [R]. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
35.
LangA. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
36.
LiL. M.ViolanteI. R.LeechR.RossE.HampshireA.OpitzA.. . . SharpD. J. (2019). Brain state and polarity dependent modulation of brain networks by transcranial direct current stimulation. Human Brain Mapping, 40, 904-915. doi:10.1002/hbm.24420
37.
LoganG. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
38.
LoganG. D. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 317-339.
39.
LuberB.LisanbyS. H. (2014). Enhancement of human cognitive performance using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). NeuroImage, 85(Pt. 3), 961-970. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.007
40.
McKinleyC. J.LimbuY.JayachandranC. N. (2017). The influence of statistical versus exemplar appeals on Indian adults’ health intentions: An investigation of direct effects and intervening persuasion processes. Health Communication, 32, 427-437. doi:10.1080/10410236.2016.1138811
41.
MillerE. K.CohenJ. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
42.
MilnerB. (1963). Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting: The role of the frontal lobes. Archives of Neurology, 9, 90-100. doi:10.1001/archneur.1963.00460070100010
43.
NeumannO. (1984). Automatic processing: A review of recent findings and a plea for an old theory. In Cognition and motor processes (pp. 255-293). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69382-3_17
44.
NitscheM. A.CohenL. G.WassermannE. M.PrioriA.LangN.AntalA.. . . Pascual-LeoneA. (2008). Transcranial direct current stimulation: State of the art 2008. Brain Stimulation, 1, 206-223. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2008.06.004
45.
NitscheM. A.FrickeK.HenschkeU.SchlitterlauA.LiebetanzD.LangN.. . . PaulusW. (2003). Pharmacological modulation of cortical excitability shifts induced by transcranial direct current stimulation in humans. The Journal of Physiology, 553(Pt. 1), 293-301. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2003.049916
46.
O’DonnellM. B.CoronelJ. C.CascioC. N.LiebermanM. D.FalkE. B. (2018). An FMRI localizer for deliberative counter arguing. In: Meeting of the Social and Affective Neuroscience Society, May Brooklyn, New York.
47.
PayneB. K.CinS. D. (2015). Implicit attitudes in media psychology. Media Psychology, 18, 292-311. doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1011341
48.
PeirceJ. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1-2), 8-13. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
49.
PetridesM.AlivisatosB.MeyerE.EvansA. C. (1993). Functional activation of the human frontal cortex during the performance of verbal working memory tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90, 878-882. doi:10.1073/pnas.90.3.878
50.
RamasubramanianS. (2007). Media-based strategies to reduce racial stereotypes activated by news stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 249-264. doi:10.1177/107769900708400204
51.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
52.
ReinardJ. C. (1988). The empirical study of the persuasive effects of evidence: The status after fifty years of research. Human Communication Research, 15(1), 3-59. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00170.x
53.
SatputeA. B.LiebermanM. D. (2006). Integrating automatic and controlled processes into neurocognitive models of social cognition. Brain Research, 1079(1), 86-97. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.005
54.
SchendelJ. D.HagmanJ. D. (1982). On sustaining procedural skills over a prolonged retention interval. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 605-610. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.605
55.
SchillerB.GianottiL. R. R.BaumgartnerT.NashK.KoenigT.KnochD. (2016). Clocking the social mind by identifying mental processes in the IAT with electrical neuroimaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 2786-2791. doi:10.1073/pnas.1515828113
56.
SellaroR.NitscheM. A.ColzatoL. S. (2016). The stimulated social brain: Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation on social cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369, 218-239. doi:10.1111/nyas.13098
57.
ShrumL. J. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects: Further tests of construct accessibility. Human Communication Research, 22, 482-509. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00376.x
58.
StaggC. J.LinR. L.MezueM.SegerdahlA.LimbuY.XieJ.TraceyI. (2013). Widespread modulation of cerebral perfusion induced during and after transcranial direct current stimulation applied to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 11425-11431. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3887-12.2013
59.
SummalaH. (1988). Risk control is not risk adjustment: The zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. Ergonomics, 31, 491-506. doi:10.1080/00140138808966694
60.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9
61.
VannorsdallT. D.SchretlenD. J.AndrejczukM.LedouxK.BosleyL. V.WeaverJ. R.. . . GordonB. (2012). Altering automatic verbal processes with transcranial direct current stimulation. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 3, Article 73. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2012.00073
62.
WagnerT.FregniF.FecteauS.GrodzinskyA.ZahnM.Pascual-LeoneA. (2007). Transcranial direct current stimulation: A computer-based human model study. NeuroImage, 35, 1113-1124. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.01.027
63.
WangZ.IrwinM.CooperC.SrivastavaJ. (2015). Multidimensions of media multitasking and adaptive media selection. Human Communication Research, 41, 102-127. doi:10.1111/hcre.12042
64.
WassermannE. M.GrafmanJ. (2005). Recharging cognition with DC brain polarization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 503-505. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.001
WoodsA. J.AntalA.BiksonM.BoggioP. S.BrunoniA. R.CelnikP.. . . NitscheM. A. (2016). A technical guide to tDCS, and related non-invasive brain stimulation tools. Clinical Neurophysiology, 127, 1031-1048. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2015.11.012
67.
ZillmannD. (2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56, S221-S237. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00291.x
68.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
