Two experiments were conducted to explore the relationship between the body posture of a message recipient and susceptibility to persuasive influence. In Experiment 1, recipients who were reclining comfortably during exposure to a counterattitudinal message showed more agreement with the message than recipients who were standing during exposure. In Experiment 2, posture (standing or reclining) and the quality of the arguments employed in the counterattitudinal message (cogent or specious) were varied in an effort to assess competing theoretical accounts of the posture effect. An interaction between posture and message quality emerged on the measure of postmessage agreement. Reclining subjects were differentially persuaded by the strong and weak arguments, but standing subjects were not. This pattern of results is consistent with the view that reclining recipients engage in more message-relevant thinking than standing recipients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Argyle, M. , & Kendon, A.The experimental analysis of social performance. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, 1967.
2.
Berdach, E. , & Bakan, P.Body position and the free recall of early memories. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1967, 4, 101-102.
3.
Cacioppo, J. T.Effects of exogenous changes in heart rate on facilitation of thought and resistance to persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 489-498.
4.
Cacioppo, J. T. , & Petty, R. E.Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 97-109.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T. , & Petty, R. E.Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought listing technique. In T. Merluzziet al. (Eds.), Cognitive assessment. New York: Guilford Press, 1981.
6.
Chaiken, S.Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 39, 752-766.
7.
Cialdini, R. B. , Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.Attitude and attitude change. In M. Rosenzweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 32). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc., 1981.
8.
Greenwald, A. G.Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwaldet al. (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press, 1968.
9.
Insko, C. A. , Lind, E. A., & LaTour, S.Persuasion, recall, and thoughts. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1976. 7, 66-78.
10.
Janis, I. L. , Kaye, D., & Kirschner, P.Facilitating effects of "eating while reauin" oil responsiveness to persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 181-186.
11.
McGinley, H. , LeFevre, R., & McGinley, P.The influence of a communicator's body position on opinion change in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 686-690.
12.
McGuire, W. J.The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
Mehrabian, A.Silent messages: Emplicit communication of emotions and attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1981.
15.
Miller, N. , & Campbell, D. T.Recency and primacy in persuasion as a function of the timing of speeches and measurements. journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 59, 1-9.
16.
Morgan, R. F. , & Bakan, P.Sensory deprivation hallucinations and other sleep behavior as a function of position, method of report, a, id anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20, 19-25.
17.
Perloff, R. M. , & Brock, T. C.And thinking makes it so: Cognitive responses to persuasion. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980.
18.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T.Effects of forewarning of persuasive intent and involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1979, 5, 173-176.
19.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T.Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown, 1981.
20.
Petty, R. E. , Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K.The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 81-92.
21.
Petty, R. E. , Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981.
22.
Petty, R. E. , Wells, G. L., & Brock, T. C.Distraction can enhance or reduce yielding to propaganda: Thought disruption versus effort justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 874-884.
23.
Phillips, J. R.Relationship of field-dependence-independence to posture and judgment of time duration . Perceptual and Motor Skille, 1977, 44, 931-940.
24.
Rhodewaldt, F. , & Comer, R.Induced-compliance attitude change: Once more with feeling. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1979, 15, 35-47.
25.
Scheier, M. F. , Carver, C. S., & Matthews, K. A.Attentional factors in the perception of bodily states. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook. New York: Guilford, in press.
26.
Schwartz, B. , Tesser, A., & Powell, E.Dominance cues in nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 1982, 45, 114-120.
27.
Staats, A. W. , & Staats, C. K.Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 57, 37-40.
28.
Wegner, D. M. , & Giuliano, T.Arousal-induced attention to the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 719-726.
