Multiple Motives and Persuasive Communication: Creative Elaboration as a Result of Impression Motivation and Accuracy Motivation

Abstract

The authors examined the influence of impression motivation (Experiments 1 and 2) and the combined effects of accuracy motivation and impression motivation (Experiment 3) on the elaboration of persuasive messages as reflected in attitude change and cognitive responses. Intermediate levels of impression motivation led to elaboration of message arguments but high levels of impression motivation did not. The authors argue that the latter finding reflects the operation of creative processing of messages, whereby receivers draw on their own arguments. However, this pattern of results only occurred when individuals also were motivated to hold valid attitudes. When accuracy concerns were lower, high impression motivation was necessary to motivate elaboration of message content. Thus, it was the combined impact of accuracy motivation and high impression motivation that stimulated participants to go beyond the information provided. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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.

Chaiken, S. , Giner-Sorolla, R. , & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York: Guilford.

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.

Chen, S. , Shechter, D. , & Chaiken, S. (1996). Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- and impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 262-275.

Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Guerin, B. , & Innes, J. M. (1989). Cognitive tuning sets: Anticipating the consequences of communication. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, 8, 234-249.

Holt, L. E. , & Watts, W. A. (1969). Salience of logical relationships among beliefs as a factor in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 193-203.

Janis, I. L. , & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role-playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 211-218.

Johnson, B. T. , & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.

10.

Killeya, L. A. , & Johnson, B. T. (1998). Experimental induction of biased systematic processing: The directed-thought technique. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 17-33.

11.

King, B. T. , & Janis, I. L. (1956). Comparison of the effectiveness of improvised versus nonimprovised role-playing in producing opinion changes. Human Relations, 9, 177-186.

12.

Leary, M. R. , & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

13.

Leippe, M. R. , & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.

14.

Nienhuis, A. E. (1998). Persuasive communication and communicating persuasion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

15.

Nienhuis, A. E. , Manstead A. S. R. , & Spears, R. (1998). Persuasive communication and communicating persuasion: The influence of impression motivation on message elaboration. Manuscript submitted for publication.

16.

Petty, R. E. (1994). Two routes to persuasion: State of the art. In G. d’Ydewalle , P. Eelen , & P. Bertelson (Eds.), International perspectives on psychological science: The state of the art (Vol. 2, pp. 229-247). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

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). New York: Academic Press.

18.

Petty, R. E. , Ostrom, T. M. , & Brock, T. C. (1981). Historical foundations of the cognitive response approach to attitudes and persuasion. In R. E. Petty , T. M. Ostrom , & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Tetlock, P. E. , & Manstead, A. S. R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92, 59-77.