The frequent interchange of derogation of source with other terms hinders viable dissonance explanations of attitude data. For example, equating derogation of a source to low credibility of a source implies a lack of consideration for the possibility of derogation at high levels of credibility. A definition is proposed to overcome this drawback. This definition may facilitate a dissonance approach to badly needed explanations for a variety of relationships between persuasibility and other communications variables, e.g., communication discrepancy and self-esteem.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersenK.ClevengerT.Jr.A summary of experimental research in ethos. Speech Monographs. 1963, 30, 59–77.
2.
AronsonE.TurnerJ. A.CarlsmithJ. M.Communicator credibility and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 31–36.
3.
BrehmJ. W.LipsherD.Communicator-communicatee discrepancy and perceived communicator trustworthiness. Journal of Personality, 1959, 27, 352–361.
4.
DabbsJ. M.Jr.Self-esteem, communicator characteristics, and attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 173–181.
5.
FestingerL.A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1957.
6.
MaileC. A.Self-esteem and source credibility as determinants of attitude change. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer. of Georgia, 1975.
7.
McCroskeyJ. C.Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 1966, 33, 65–72.
8.
OsgoodC. E.TannenbaumP.The principle of congruity and the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 42–55.
9.
RarickG. R.Effects of two components of communicator prestige. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford Univer., 1963.
10.
ZimbardoP. G.Involvement and communication discrepancy as determinants of opinion conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 86–94.
