Individuals high and low in dogmatism read a counter attitudinal message from either an expert or a nonexpert source who supported his position with either strong or weak arguments. Low-dogmatic individuals tended to be persuaded by the strength of the arguments regardless of the source. High-dogmatic individuals were persuaded by the strength of the arguments when the source was nonexpert but were equally persuaded by strong and weak arguments when the source was expert. Cognitive response data suggested that low-dogmatic individuals may have been systematically processing the message in both source conditions but high-dogmatic individuals may have been doing so only in the nonexpert condition. Results are discussed in terms of the psychological needs that source factors can fulfill for message recipients.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
2.
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.
3.
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. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
DeBono, K. G. (1989). On the processing of functionally relevant consumer information: Another look at source factors. In T. Srull (Ed.),Advance in consumer research (Vol. 16). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
5.
DeBono, K. G. , & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541-546.
6.
DeBono, K. G. , & Telesca, C. (1990). The influence of source physical attractiveness on advertising effectiveness: A functional perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1383-1395.
7.
Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17). New York: Academic Press.
8.
Ehrlich, H. J. (1961). Dogmatism and learning: A five-year follow-up. Psychological Reports, 9, 283-286.
9.
Ehrlich, H. J. , & Lee, D. (1969). Dogmatism, learning, and resistance to change: A review and a new paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 249-260.
10.
Hanson, D. J. (1968). Dogmatism and authoritarianism. Journal of Social Psychology, 76, 89-95.
11.
Heesacker, M. , Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Field dependence and attitude change: Source credibility can alter persuasion by affecting message relevant thinking. Journal of Personality, 51, 653-666.
12.
Hovland, C. I. , Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, Cr: Yale University Press.
13.
Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.
14.
Kemp, C. G. (1962). Influence of dogmatism on the training of counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 9, 155-157.
15.
Long, B. H. , & Ziller, R C. (1965). Dogmatism and pre-decisional information search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 376-378.
16.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). Reading, MA.Addison-Wesley.
17.
Norman, R. P. (1966). Dogmatism and psychoneurosis in college women. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 278.
18.
Norris, E. L. (1965). Attitude change as a function of open or close-mindedness. Journalism Quarterly, 42, 571-575.
19.
Pallak, S. R. (1983). Salience of a communicator's physical attractiveness and persuasion: A heuristic versus systematic processing interpretation. Social Cognition, 2, 120-139.
20.
Peabody, D. (1961). Attitude content and agreement set in scale of authoritarianism, dogmatism, anti-Semitism, and economic conservatism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 1-11.
21.
Petty, R E. , & Cacioppo. J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion General and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
22.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experiment social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
23.
Petty, R. E. , Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
24.
Plant, W. T. (1960). Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale as a measure of general authoritarianism. Psychological Reports, 6, 164.
25.
Pratkanis, A. R. , Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (Eds.). (1989). Attitude structure and function. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The o and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
27.
Rokeach, M. , & Fruchter, B. (1956). A factorial study of dogmatism and related concepts. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 356-360.
28.
Sorrentino, R. M. , Bobocei, D. M., Gitta, M. Z., Olson, J. M., & Hewitt, E C. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: Individual differences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 357-371.
29.
Sorrentino, R. M. , & Short, J. C. (1986). Uncertainty orientation, motivation, and cognition. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition. New York: Guilford.
30.
Terhune, K. W. (1964). Nationalism among foreign and American students: An exploratory study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8, 256-270.
31.
Vacchiano, R. B. , Strauss, P. S., & Hochman, D. (1969). The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 261-273.
32.
Vacchiano, R. B. , Strauss, P. S., & Schiffmfan, D. C. (1968). Personality correlates of dogmatism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 83-85.
33.
Vidulich, R. N. , & Kaiman, I. P. (1961). The effects of information source status and dogmatism upon conformity behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 639-642.
