The data suggest that, when asked to give reasons in support of their own policy position and of the opposing policy position on an issue, Ss tend in general to think in terms of the consequences of the alternative to the current policy rather than in terms of the consequences of the current policy itself. Several possible implications of this finding were mentioned.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HovlandC. I.LumsdaineA. A.SheffieldF. D.Experiments on mass communication. Princeton: Princeton Univer. Press, 1949.
2.
PeakH.Attitude and motivation. In JonesM. R. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1955. Lincoln, Neb.: Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1955. Pp. 149–188.
3.
RosenbergM. J.An analysis of affective-cognitive consistency. In RosenbergM. J.HovlandC. I., Attitude organization and change. New Haven: Yale Univer. Press, 1960. Pp. 15–64.
4.
WeissW.Reason giving and attitude change when both sides of an issue have to be supported. Washington, D. C.: Office of Naval Research, Contract NONR 4309 (00), March, 1965. (Tech. Rep. 2)
5.
WeissW.SolomonH.Effects of sources, placement of sources, and persuasive communication on attitude, reason giving, and action intentions. Washington, D. C.: Office of Naval Research, Contract NONR 4309 (00), March, 1966. (Tech. Rep. 7)
6.
WeissW.SolomonH.Influence of source and number of exposures on communication effectiveness. Washington, D. C.: Office of Naval Research, Contract NONR 4309(00), May, 1967. (Tech. Rep. 10)
