Three experiments tested the hypothesis that need for affect and need for cognition influence receptivity to affect- and cognition-based persuasive messages. Experiment 1 found that an affective message elicited more positive attitudes among individuals high in need for affect and low in need for cognition, whereas a cognitive message elicited more positive attitudes among individuals low in need for affect and high in need for cognition. Experiment 2 found that individual differences in need for affect influenced receptivity to an affect-based (but not cognition-based) message, whereas individual differences in need for cognition influenced receptivity to a cognition-based (but not affect-based) message. Experiment 3 found that individual differences in need for affect were associated with increased recognition of information from an affect-based (but not cognition-based) message, whereas individual differences in need for cognition were associated with increased recognition of information from a cognition-based (but not affect-based) message. Overall, the studies point to the importance of individual differences in need for affect and need for cognition in understanding how individuals respond to different types of persuasive messages.
Aarts, H., Custers, R., & Holland, R.W. (2007). The nonconscious cessation of goal pursuit: When goals and negative affect are coactivated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 165-178.
2.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
3.
Bargh, J.A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of social interaction. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 2, pp. 93- 130). New York: Guilford.
4.
Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
5.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, W.B.G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
6.
Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., & Kao, C.E. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition . Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
7.
Carver, C.S. (1989). How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues illustrated by self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 577-585.
8.
Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory search. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
9.
Crites, S.L., Fabrigar, L.R., & Petty, R.E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619-634.
10.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
11.
Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59, 202-216.
12.
Edwards, K., & von Hippel, W. (1995). Hearts and minds: The priority of affective versus cognitive factors in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 996-1011.
13.
Fabrigar, L.R., & Petty, R.E. (1999). The role of the affective and cognitive bases of attitudes in susceptibility to affectively and cognitively based persuasion . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 363-381.
14.
Fazio, R.H., & Zanna, M.P. (1978). On the predictive validity of attitude: The roles of direct experience and confidence. Journal of Personality , 46, 228-243.
15.
Haddock, G., & Huskinson, T.L.H. (2004). Individual differences in attitude structure. In G. Haddock & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 35-56). Hove , UK: Psychology Press.
16.
Haugtvedt, C., Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behavior . Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 239-260.
17.
Janis, I., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effects of fear-arousing communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78-92.
18.
Larsen, R.J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an individual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 1-39.
19.
Maio, G.R., & Esses, V.M. (2001). The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality , 69, 583-616.
20.
Maio, G.R., Esses, V.M., Arnold, K., & Olson, J.M. (2004). The function-structure model of attitudes: Incorporating the need for affect. In G. Haddock & G. R. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp. 7-34). New York: Psychology Press.
21.
Maio, G.R., & Haddock, G. (2007). Attitude change. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles. (pp. 565-586). New York: Guilford.
22.
Millar, M.G., & Millar, K.U. (1990). Attitude change as a function of attitude type and argument type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 59, 217-228.
23.
Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality: A clinical and experimental study of fifty men of college age. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., Strathman, A., & Priester, J.R. (2005). To think or not to think? Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. C. Brock & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 81-116). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
25.
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications of scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 227-240.
26.
Petty, R.E., Wheeler, S.C., & Bizer, G.Y. (2000). Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In G. Maio & J. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 133-162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Pieters, R.G.M., Petty, R.E., & Haugtvedt, C.P. (1985). The external and moderating effect of need for cognition on attitude-belief and attitude-behavior consistency: A field study. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University .
28.
Sadowski, C.J., & Gulgoz, S. (1992). Internal consistency and testretest reliability of the need for cognition scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 74, 610.
29.
Sojka, J.Z., & Giese, J.L. (1997). Thinking and/or feeling: An examination of interaction between processing styles. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 438-442.
30.
Webster, D.M., & Kruglanski, A.W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
31.
Wheeler, S.C., Petty, R.E., & Bizer, G.Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and attitude change: Situational and dispositional determinants of message elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 787-797.
32.
Wyer, R.S., & Hartwick, J. (1980). The role of information retrieval and conditional inference processes in belief formation and change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 241-284). New York: Academic Press.
33.
Wyer, R.S., & Hartwick, J. (1984). The recall and use of belief statements as bases for judgments: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65-85.
