These studies investigated how the verbal and nonverbal content of a message affected value-based attitudes. Participants viewed a speaker who advocated a policy change at their own university (high-personal-relevance condition) or another university (low-personal-relevance condition) on an issue relevant to participants' values. Verbal content of the message (strong or weak arguments) and nonverbal behavior of the speaker (negative or natural) were varied. A negative delivery led to impressions of the speaker as less likable, assured, and expert, but it had no effect on attitudes. Increasing personal relevance led to more negative attitudes, but argument strength affected the attitudes and thoughts of both low- and high-personal-relevance participants. Results suggested that for a value-relevant topic, lowering personal relevance did not reduce extensive processing of verbal content.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andreoli, V. , & Worchel, S. (1978). Effects of media, communicator, and position of message on attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42, 59-70.
2.
Archer, D. , & Akert, R. M. (1977). Words and everything else: Verbal and nonverbal cues in social interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 443-449.
3.
Blanck, P. D. , & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Nonverbal behavior in the courtroom. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Applications of nonverbal behavioral theories and research (pp. 89-118). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Blanck, P. D. , Rosenthal, R., Hart, A. J., & Bernieri, F. (1990). The measure of the judge: An empirically based framework for exploring trial judges' behavior. Iowa Law Review, 75, 653-684.
5.
Boninger, D. S. , Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1995). Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61-80.
6.
Boninger, D. S. , Krosnick, J. A., Berent, M. K., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1995). The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 159-189). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Burgoon, J. K. , Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140-169.
8.
Burgoon, J. K. , Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1996). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
9.
Burgoon, J. K. , & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.
10.
Burgoon, J. K. , & Le Poire, B. A. (1993). Effects of communication expectancies, actual communication, and expectancy disconfirmation on evaluation of communicators and their communication behavior. Human Communication Research, 20, 67-96.
11.
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.
12.
Chaiken, S. , Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford.
13.
DePaulo, B. M. , Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323-370). New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
15.
Engstrom, E. (1994). Effects of nonfluencies on speaker's credibility in newscast settings. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 78, 739-743.
16.
Huddleston, B. M. (1986). An experimental investigation of the influences deceptive nonverbal cues exert on persuasive processes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(3-A), 709.
17.
Johnson, B. T. , & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
18.
Johnson, B. T. , & Eagly, A. H. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Types, traditions, and the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 375-384.
19.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204.
20.
Maio, G. R. , & Olson, J. M. (1995). Involvement and persuasion: Evidence for different types of involvement. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 27, 64-78.
21.
McCroskey, J. C. , & Mehrley, R. S. (1969). The effects of disorganization and nonfluency on attitude change and source credibility. Speech Monographs, 36, 13-21.
22.
Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
23.
Mehrabian, A. , & Williams, M. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 37-58.
24.
Miller, N. (1965). Involvement and dogmatism as inhibitors of attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 121-132.
25.
Miller, N. , Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615-624.
26.
Moore, D. L. , Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 85-99.
27.
Noller, P. (1985). Video primacy-A further look. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 9, 28-47.
28.
Ostrom, T. M. , & Brock, T. C. (1968). A cognitive model of attitudinal involvement. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 373-383). Chicago: Rand McNally.
29.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
30.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effect of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
31.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). San Diego: Academic Press.
32.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990). Involvement and persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 367-374.
33.
Petty, R. E. , Cacioppo, J. T., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (1992). Ego-involvement and persuasion: An appreciative look at the Sherifs' contribution to the study of self-relevance and attitude change. In D. Granberg & G. Sarup (Eds.), Social judgment and intergroup relations: Essays in honor of Muzafer Sherif (pp. 147-174). New York: Springer-Verlag. Marsh et al./NONVERBAL CUES AND VALUE RELEVANCE
34.
Priester, J. R. , & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637-654.
35.
Pryor, B. , & Leone, C. (1981). Behavioral stereotypes of deceptive communication. Trial17, 14-19.
36.
Riggio, R. E. , & Friedman, H. S. (1983). Individual differences and cues to deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 899-915.
37.
Sereno, K. K. , & Hawkins, J. (1967). The effects of variations in speakers' nonfluency upon audience ratings of attitude toward the speech topic and speakers' credibility. Speech Monographs, 34, 58-64.
38.
Sherif, C. W. , Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approachPhiladelphia: W. B. Saunders.
39.
Smith, S. M. , & Shaffer, D. R. (1991). Celerity and cajolery: Rapid speech may promote or inhibit persuasion through its impact on message elaboration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 663-669.
40.
Smith, S. M. , & Shaffer, D. R. (1995). Speed of speech and persuasion: Evidence for multiple effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1051-1060.
41.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
42.
Wood, W. , & Eagly, A. H. (1981). Stages in the analysis of persuasive messages: The role of causal attributions and message comprehension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 246-259.
43.
Woodall, W. G. , & Burgoon, J. K. (1984). Talking fast and changing attitudes: A critique and clarification. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 126-142.
44.
Worchel, S. , Andreoli, V. A., & Eason, J. (1975). Is the medium the message?: A study of media, communicator, and message characteristics on attitude change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 157-172.
45.
Zuckerman, M. , DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 1-59). New York: Academic.
