The effects of expert speakers in producing change in drug attitudes, opinions and knowledge of high school students were evaluated with a quasi-field experiment. Three different treatment groups (expertise areas) and a control group were employed. The results indicate that such programs have no change effect. Additional analysis explored change by student type, using the latent class analysis suggested by Lazarsfeld. There is evidence that one class type is susceptible to change, but that the change is minimal given this type of program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HovlandC.JanisI. and KelleyH., Communication and Persuasion, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1953.
2.
BerloD. K.LemertJ. B. and MertzR. J., Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources, Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563–576, 1970.
3.
AndersonK. and ClevengerT.Jr., A summary of experimental research in ethos, Speech Monographs, 30, 59–78, 1963.
4.
HovlandC. and MandellW., An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 581–588, 1952.
5.
ThistlethwaitD. L., The effects of “directive” and “nondirective” communication procedure on attitudes, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 107–113, 1955.
6.
JanisI. and FeshbachS., Effects of fear-arousing communications, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78–92, 1953.
7.
BerkowitzL. and CottinghamD., The interest value and relevance of fear-arousing communications, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 37–43, 1960.
8.
PowellF. A., The effects of anxiety-arousing messages when related to personal, familial and interpersonal referents, Speech Monographs, 32, 102–106, 1965.
9.
LeventhalH., Fear—for your health, in Readings in Psychology Today, 2nd ed., Del Mar California, CRM Books, pp. 627–631, 1972.
10.
AndersonK., Persuasion: Theory and Practice, Boston, Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 1971.
11.
MartinH. H., Communication settings in MartinH. H. and AndersonK. E., eds., Speech Communication: Analysis and Readings, Boston, Allyn & Bacon, Inc., 58–84, 1968.
12.
HovlandC. and JanisI., eds., Personality and Persuasibility, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1959.
13.
GergenK. and MarlowD., eds., Personality and Social Behavior, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley, 1969.
14.
GergenK. and BauerR., The interactive effects of self-esteem and task difficulty on social conformity, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 16–22, 1967.
15.
SieglerM. and OsmondH., Models of drug addiction, The International Journal of the Addictions, 3, 3–24, 1968.
16.
LazarsfeldP., The logical and mathematical foundation of latent structure analysis, in StoufferSamuel, Measurement and Prediction, Chapter 10, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1950.
17.
MillerC. P.EymanR. K. and DingmanH. F., Factor analysis, latent structure analysis and mental typology, British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 31, 335–341, 1961.
18.
MillerC. R.SabaghG. and DingmanH. F., Latent class analysis and differential mortality, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57, June, 1962.
19.
MillerC. R. and ButlerE. W., Anomia and eunomia: A methodological evaluation of Srole's anomia scale, American Journal of Sociology, 31, 400–406, 1966.
20.
TarjanR. E. and MillerC. R., An analytical positive manifold algorithm for use with latent class analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research, July, 1971.
